Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Pakistan) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your address praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Portuguese Republic of the Agreement set out in the Schedule to the draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Portugal) Order, 1961, which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROTHESAY BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

ARGYLL COUNTY COUNCIL (SCALASAIG PIER, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATON BILL

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Argyll County Council (Scalasaig Pier, etc.), presented by Mr. Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Electricity Supply

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make available in the Library a transcript of evidence taken by the Hong Kong Electricity Supply Commission in 1959.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Yes, Sir. I shall inform the hon. Gentleman when the transcript has been received and placed in the Library.

Mr. E. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now direct the Government of Hong Kong to implement the main recommendation of the Electricity Supply Commission's Report, dated December, 1959, to take into public ownership the two electricity supply companies in the Colony.

Mr. H. Fraser: No, Sir.

Mr. Thornton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the electricity companies made it quite clear to the Commission that there was no half-way house between public ownership and unfettered private ownership? Does not the well-known doctrinaire dislike of nationalisation by the present Administration put the private electricity power companies in a very strong bargaining position?

Mr. Fraser: I have full confidence in the way in which the Governor is handing the matter. There is no evidence that the present negotiations have affected the supply of electricity to the consumers. Furthermore, the restriction on the distribution of dividends has created a large reserve which can be put to good use in the necessary development of electricity supplies in the Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Constitutional Conference

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made for a renewed constitutional conference on Kenya's


future; and if the restriction upon Mr. Jomo Kenyatta's membership of the Legislature will be withdrawn so that he may attend.

Mr. H. Fraser: As has been announced by my right hon. Friend, the constitutional conference on Kenya will begin in London on 14th February next. As indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) on 5th December, which may have escaped the hon. Member's notice, the restrictions on persons who have served a prison sentence exceeding two years from standing for election to the Legislative Council have been removed.

Mr. Brockway: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that had not escaped my attention. This Question has been on the Order Paper a long time. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all of us want this conference to be a success and to bring the independence of Kenya nearer? Does he agree that meanwhile it is very desirable that a policy should be pursued in Kenya which will create the correct psychology? Did the Colonial Office authorise the reintroduction yesterday of detention without trial in Kenya? If so, does it not hamper us in any criticisms we may make of other countries if the British Government reintroduce detention without trial?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman tables a separate Question on this subject, we can have a further discussion when I have more information on the point to which he refers.

Food Supplies

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether supplies of food to the affected areas of Kenya are now adequate, or whether help is still required from voluntary and international organisations.

Mr. H. Fraser: Any further donations to Kenya's Famine Relief Fund either in cash or in the form of protein foods and vitamin supplements will be welcome.
Basic food supplies in Kenya are adequate but due to delays in shipment they are short of protein supplementary foods. The position should improve with the arrival of the first shipment of

milk powder about 20th December, but the Kenya Government will need money for the purchase and distribution of additional foods in order to combat malnutrition, which will undoubtedly be an aftermath to the famine. Moreover, a further £15,000 will have to be found for anti-malarial drugs, since following the floods a much greater incidence of malaria must now be expected.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Tobacco Industry

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many workers were employed, and how many were un-employed, in the cigar-making and tobacco-growing industries in Jamaica, at the latest convenient date and at the corresponding date in 1951; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Fraser: I have no recent information on this subject. Labour matters are within the competence of the Government of Jamaica which is self-governing in this sphere. I have, however, asked the Governor if he can provide this information and will write to my hon. Friend when I hear from him.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not undoubtedly help the workers in the cigar-making and tobacco-growing industries in Jamaica if the hon. Gentleman had a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is a very easy way of encouraging greater production, namely, by lowering the duty on Jamaican cigars coming into this country?

Mr. Fraser: We have given various pledges to Jamaica. The import figures in 1960 and for the first nine months of 1961 show a considerable improvement on the corresponding figures for 1959.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Government's Commonwealth Immigrants Bill will greatly aggravate the problem of unemployment in Jamaica? Will the Government do something about increasing economic aid to compensate in some measure for the effect of the Bill?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Russell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the import of


Jamaican cigars has gone down over the period I mention in my Question because of competition from Cuba? Will he make representations to the Board of Trade with a view to trying to reduce the import of Cuban cigars?

Mr. Fraser: We have always said that Jamaica's interests will be very much borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI

Population and Agricultural Production

Mr. LI. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the increase in population in Fiji for each of the last five years; and what has been the increase in production in agriculture for each of these years.

Mr. H. Fraser: The recorded increase in population each year has been just over 13,000. Reliable figures for agriculture show only the products exported from, and not those consumed in, Fiji.

Mr. LI. Williams: Is the Under-Secretary aware that we can never hope that the economy of Fiji and similar territories will become viable and stable unless and until—I speak without offence—religious scruples are thrown overboard to ensure family planning in this and other under-developed territories?

Mr. Fraser: Quite apart from religious scruples, in fact there are family planning units working there. There is a very large area of land to be developed. The major report—that of the Burns Commission—shows that there is almost as much land in Fiji as in Jamaica, which sustains a far larger population than the 380,000 or 390,000 population of Fiji.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Hurricane Damage

Mr. LI. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the present situation in British Honduras after the recent hurricane.

Mr. H. Fraser: There is very little to add to the full reply which I gave on 30th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).
The civil departments have largely resumed the responsibilities which for a time were exercised by the Service authorities. The new Governor, Sir Peter Stallard, takes over tomorrow in succession to Sir Colin Thornley who was due to leave a month ago but remained to direct the relief operations.

Mr. Ll. Williams: Is the Under-Secretary aware that his recent visit to British Honduras was highly commendable and valuable? Is he further aware that the action of Sir Colin Thornley, the Governor, in throwing himself so completely into the fight against the terribly difficult conditions resulting from the recent disaster is characteristic of the fine colonial servant he is and is in line with our highest colonial traditions?

Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that expression of view, with which I heartily accord. I am glad to say that the Navy very kindly sent a ship back and Sir Colin departed with full gubernatorial honours on 4th December and Sir Peter Stallard will be taking over tomorrow.

Mr. LI. Williams: Is the Under-Secretary aware that what I said about Sir Colin Thornley should be seen in the light of the fact that he has been recently very ill indeed?

Mr. Fraser: I agree entirely.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

United Federal Party Members (Convictions)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that members of the United Federal Party in Nyasaland have been found guilty of conspiracy to defraud, of arson of their own houses, of fabricating charges of the arson of these houses against members of the Malawi Party and of giving false evidence against the latter; and what action has been taken by the Nyasaland Government following these verdicts.

Mr. H. Fraser: Yes, Sir. Three members of the Mbobo branch of the United Federal Party, including the chairman Victor Chijalo, were convicted of arson and attempting to defraud by false pretences and have been sentenced to 18 months' hard labour. One further case


of conspiracy involving an official of the United Federal Party is still sub judice.

Mr. Fisher: In the light of the fairly widespread charges of arson and intimidation which were made against the Malawi Party prior to the elections in Nyasaland, is it not rather scandalous that the United Federal Party supporters should themselves have committed these crimes and falsified the facts in order to discredit their political opponents? Can my hon. Friend say that these houses are no longer included in the itinerary of the "Voice and Vision" tours of hon. Members?

Mr. Fraser: It is not for me to comment, except to see that the law takes its full and due course in Nyasaland, and this we are ensuring.

Mr. Healey: In view of the very wide publicity which was given to the falsehoods by the "Voice and Vision" organisation and by the Federal Government, can the hon. Gentleman say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking through their information officers in the Federation to correct this false propaganda?

Mr. Fraser: It is not for Her Majesty's Government to enter into matters of propaganda. It is far more effective for the facts to speak for themselves, and these facts speak outstandingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and U.N.I.P. Branches

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Kenneth Kaunda has been refused permits to hold meetings in the Northern Province of Northern Rhodesia; and why the United National Independence Party has been refused permission to re-register its branches in Abercorn and Kasama.

Mr. H. Fraser: Mr. Kaunda made a tour of the Northern Provinces in October and again in November. The granting of permits for particular meetings is, however, a matter for the local authority in the district concerned, and I have asked the Governor about any recent refusals of permits to him.
As regards re-registration of U.N.I.P. branches, the Governor's announcement on 1st November of the

revocation of the general order declaring these branches unlawful in certain Provinces explained that all such branches were now eligible to reapply for registration and each application would be considered on its merits. I have asked the Governor about the two branches mentioned, and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the Under-Secretary very warmly for that reply. Is he aware that the facts stated in my Question were based on letters and telegrams I have received from Mr. Kenneth Kaunda's right-hand man in the Northern Province? Does he agree that Mr. Kaunda is an outstanding and moderate African leader who has constantly preached non-violence and that every facility should be given to him in the Northern Province for him to conduct his propaganda and build his organisation?

Mr. Fraser: I have a warm personal regard for Mr. Kaunda, but I must await the official reply from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Government Employees

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why there are nine times as many Africans as Europeans employed in clerical occupations by the Nyasaland Government, and more Europeans than Africans employed in similar occupations by the Government of Northern Rhodesia; and whether he is satisfied with this discrepancy.

Mr. H. Fraser: The racial distribution of those employed in clerical occupations by the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland depends on the numbers of suitably qualified applicants from each race and naturally reflects the racial distribution of the population as a whole. In both territories Africans form a considerable majority of those holding permanent posts, and this proportion should increase as qualified Africans become available to fill posts at present occupied by Europeans on temporary terms.

Mr. Dugdale: Does this mean that the educational system for Africans in Nyasaland is so much better than the educational system for Africans in


Northern Rhodesia, or does it mean that the ideas of partnership in Nyasaland are radically different from those in Northern Rhodesia, because it must mean one or the other?

Mr. Fraser: No. If the right hon. Gentleman will look closely at the figures he will find that in Northern Rhodesia there are 912 Africans but only about 250 Europeans in permanent employment. In Nyasaland there are 950 Africans and only 40 or 50 Europeans. This largely reflects the skills available and the proportions of the races in both countries, which vary.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Famines (Cost)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the cost to the United Kingdom Government of the recent famines in Kenya, and Tanganyika, respectively.

Mr. H. Fraser: As regards Kenya, Her Majesty's Government have made £295,000 available. The cost of assistance provided by the H.M. forces is not yet known. As regards Tanganyika, I can only say that the request for a grant of £300,000 mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Aden Territories and the Yemen

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the frontier between the Aden Protectorates and the Yemen remain quiet; whether the relationships of Aden with the Yemen have improved; what proposals have been made in the Protectorates and Aden Colony for contingent closer associations with the Yemen; and what further progress has been made or is contemplated in constitutional advance, particularly towards the closer association of the Protectorates with the Colony.

Mr. H. Fraser: The frontier is generally quiet and relations with the Yemen are satisfactory. My right hon. Friend has received no proposals for closer association between Aden territories

and the Yemen. The Governor is continuing his discussions with Ministers from the Federation and the Colony about matters of common concern.

Mr. Sorensen: Arising out of that reply, and in reference to the latter part of my Question, may I ask the Minister whether in any contemplated advance constitutionally in the Aden Protectorate and the Colony, he will bear in mind the fact that the nature of the Protectorate is very different from that of the Colony, and that considerable apprehension exists among some people in the Colony lest in any kind of union they are overborne by the autocrats of the Protectorate? May I ask him, further, whether any contemplated advance in democracy is in his mind in regard to the Protectorate?

Mr. Fraser: That is a question of which I should like further notification. We must proceed gradually in these plans. There are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, talks going on between the Governor and representatives from the Federation and the Colony at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Compulsory Education

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Colonies have not yet instituted compulsory education; and if he will list them.

Mr. H. Fraser: Thirty-one territories. With permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Boyden: Is not this entirely unsatisfactory? How many of those thirty-one will have compulsory education within, say, the next five years?

Mr. Fraser: I think that our first task is to provide primary education for all the children who want it, and, secondly, higher education as we can get to it. Of course, it is unsatisfactory against the standards in this country, but if I might point out some of the things done by this Government and the previous Government since 1946, I can say that no less than £54 million has been spent on education in the Colonies through


C.D. and W. grants. To make another two or three points, in Africa, in Tanganyika, for instance, the total number of enrolled schoolchildren has gone up from 180,000 in 1950 to over 430,000 today, and in Kenya from 330,000 in 1950 to 730,000 today. That is considerable progress, and to denigrate it, I believe, is in the worst possible interest.

Mr. Rankin: While acknowledging that progress, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary would agree that it is also true that when many of the Colonies do attain a form of self-government, there is always a definite shortage of the necessary Civil Service staff in those Colonies? Does not that prove that our educational effort both at the primary and higher level is still insufficient?

Mr. Fraser: I agree that it is insufficient, but between 1950 and today we have more than doubled the number of schoolchildren in many of our Colonies.

Following is the list:
Aden.
Antigua.
Barbados.
Basutoland.
Bechuanaland Protectorate.
Bermuda.
British Guiana.
British Honduras.
British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
Brunei.
Falkland Islands.
Fiji.
Gambia.
Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
Grenada.
Hong Kong.
Mauritius.
Montserrat.
New Hebrides.
North Borneo.
Nyasaland.
St. Christopher Nevis and Anguilla.
St. Lucia.
St. Vincent.
Sarawak.
Seychelles.
Swaziland.
Tanganyika.
Uganda.
Virgin Islands.
Zanzibar.

Teacher Training Colleges

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the number of Colonies with no teaching training colleges within their boundaries; if he will list them; and what arrangements are made for the training of teachers for these areas.

Mr. H. Fraser: The following areas have no teacher training colleges: Bermuda, the Windward Islands, the Virgin Islands, Montserrat, St. Kitts, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, New Hebrides and St. Helena.
If I may, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details—which are lengthy—of the steps taken by these largely island territories to deal with their individual teacher training problem.

Mr. Boyden: While not necessarily denigrating the efforts of the Government in building up compulsory education, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what steps are being taken about increasing the supply of teachers in the thirty-one Territories in which there is no compulsory education?

Mr. Fraser: I should be very pleased to send the hon. Gentleman a long list of the steps being taken and I should be very happy to send him detailed estimates of the type of scheme we are putting forward now.

Following are the details:
The following arrangements are made for the training of teachers for these areas:

Bermuda
Scholarships are provided by the Government of Bermuda to enable prospective teachers to take training in Britain and Canada.

Leeward and Windward Islands
Places are reserved at the Teacher Training College in Antigua for teachers from Montserrat. St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, the Virgin Islands and Dominica. Places are reserved at Erdiston Training College, Barbados, for teachers from Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent.
Short courses are also organised by Education Officers in each island with the assistance of the Department of Education of the University College of the West Indies.

Falkland Islands
The majority of teachers are expatriates. Locally recruited teachers are given teacher training in the Government School in Stanley.

Gibraltar
Teachers are sent to Britain for training.

New Hebrides
Up to the present teachers have been trained at the teacher training college in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
A teacher training college has been built and is due to open in 1962.

St. Helena
In-service training is given and a teacher-training centre was established in 1959 with a C.D. and W. grant. A full-time tutor was appointed in 1961.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Economy

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that official attempts to encourage industrialisation in Malta in the past three-and-a-half years have provided fewer than 600 workers with employment, but that the run-down in the defence departments continues and there are about 1,000 fewer jobs in the naval base and ship-repairing yards; why the conversion of the docks from naval to commercial purposes has been delayed, and how much public money has now been provided for Messrs. Bailey in this connection; and what practical plans he now has to safeguard the future of the Maltese economy.

Mr. H. Fraser: New industries take some time to reach their full employment capacity, but those already in operation, or which have been approved, are expected to provide employment for over 4,000 people. Delay in the conversion of the dockyard arose in the main from the need to consider and finance a revised and enlarged plan. The company has so far received loans of approximately £2·4 million from the British Government. As regards the last part of the Question, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the Review of the Development Plan for the Maltese Islands 1959–64, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the inevitable time-lag, which the hon. Gentleman has frankly admitted at the beginning of his Answer, may I ask him if he is satisfied that we shall be able to bridge the gap between the naval and commercial uses of the dockyard? In this connection, has he read the very startling Report by the Public Accounts Committee of this House, which shows that Messrs. Bailey have, to use no stronger word, misapplied over £1 million of £1,200,000 advanced to them for this purpose?

Mr. Fraser: I do not want to go into all the points mentioned in the Report, which has been debated by the House. What we are discussing here is the question of employment. In regard to the dockyard, I am happy to say that con-

tracts will be let very shortly, and we hope that the contractors will start work about the end of this year.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it was the intention when the transfer took place four years ago that the men who became redundant in the dockyard should be transferred to the ship-repairing yard, and that the ship-repairing yard should be transferred to the commercial undertaking? Could he tell us if any dry docks in Malta have been completed by the commercial undertaking?

Mr. Fraser: There has been some delay here, but, in regard to the proportion of unemployment, the total has risen from 3,500 in December, 1958, to about 4,100. This is not unsatisfactory, considering that for the transitional stage this is a proportion of unemployment of less than 5 per cent.

Mr. Driberg: Although the hon. Gentleman brushes aside the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on Messrs. Bailey's misapplication of this money, surely the fact that they used over £1 million for other purposes, and not for the purpose of development in Malta for which it was advanced to them, must have some bearing on the delay?

Mr. Fraser: I do not seriously think so. It was a question of giving a grant for enlarging the size and scale of the operation.

Constitution

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what indications he has now received of the willingness or unwillingness of the main political parties in Malta to take part in a General Election in February; and if, in order to encourage such participation, he will now affirm that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the people of Malta are entitled to exercise the right of self-determination, and that he will negotiate with the Maltese elected majority a date for the implementation of this right.

Mr. H. Fraser: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend on the 23rd November to the hon. Members for Eton and Slough


(Mr. Brockway) and Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Driberg: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, those replies were rather negative in character. Why do the Government always say that ultimate self-government is "not excluded", or some phrase of that kind? Cannot they make a positive affirmation of the right of the Maltese people, in this George Cross island, to the self-determination to which the Government are committed in respect of every such territory?

Mr. Fraser: I feel quite certain that it would be only appropriate that I should restate what has been stated before—that the next step, and the essential step, is for us to get a representative Government in Malta. That is the next step, and, following that, I am perfectly prepared to discuss with those who are returned what the next step beyond that should be, but that is a matter for discussion with the elected Government after the forthcoming elections in Malta.

Mr. Healey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the chance of getting an effective Government which is truly representative of the people of Malta depends very largely on the confidence of those who might participate that it is worth while to participate in the election, and that the functions they will have after the election are those which they wish to have? As both major parties are highly dissatisfied with the Constitution under which the elections are being held, will the Under-Secretary seriously consider at least accepting the principle of self-government for Malta before the election? Furthermore, in view of evidence that there is interference in the free conduct of elections, would he also consider sending out a Commission from this country to observe the elections from this moment on?

Mr. Fraser: In reply to the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I repeat that this next stage is not the final stage in Malta's constitutional development. We will discuss the next stage with those who are returned and who make up the new Maltese Government. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's sup-

plementary question, I do not believe that at this stage, although there is some intimidation on both sides, the point has been reached when we should have a commission of inquiry.

Sir P. Agnew: Would it not be putting the cart before the horse to invite the people of Malta to exercise the right of self-determination before the new Constitution has been brought into operation, giving, as it does, internal responsible Government? Is not the first step, and an essential one, to attempt to restore the viability of the Maltese economy so that any Constitution which the island has can be broadly and surely based?

Mr. Fraser: I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Refugees (Alleged Kidnapping)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange with the Home Office for a Scotland Yard official to proceed to Basutoland to investigate the alleged kidnapping of Mr. Ganyile and two other refugees by police from the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the extent and nature of the search carried out by the Basutoland police in the huts in Basutoland from which Mr. Anderson Ganyile and two colleagues were allegedly kidnapped on 26th August.

Mr. H. Fraser: No report was received by the authorities in Basutoland until 16th September, over three weeks after the reputed date of the alleged abduction.
The immediate police investigation was further hampered by the length of time which had elapsed and by the effects of a prolonged dust storm. The police conducted a full and thorough search and removed for examination a blanket containing bloodstains. Expert investigations show that the blood on the blanket belongs to blood group A, a fairly common group, but it is not possible to deduce whether the blood was shed in late August or at some other date.
An additional point of difficulty is evidence that three persons were seen around the huts in this remote area on 10th September, that is to say after the alleged abduction and before the report was received. So far no further local evidence has come to light.
In these circumstances. I do not consider that assistance from Scotland Yard would be of value.
Nevertheless, I regard it as of paramount importance that incidents or alleged incidents on the border between Basutoland and the Republic of South Africa should be prevented and I am, therefore, taking steps to increase the strength of the Basutoland Mounted Police and notably the C.I.D. of that force.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that last acknowledgment, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that fourteen weeks have now passed since this alleged kidnapping? Whilst that is predominantly due to the extraordinary postponement of any judgment in the court of the Republic on habeas corpus, is not the hon. Gentleman also aware that there is very considerable criticism of the actions of the police in these investigations and in co-ordinating the evidence? If county police in this country can ask for the assistance of Scotland Yard, is it not desirable that less experienced police in Basutoland should also ask for the assistance of Scotland Yard in this case?

Mr. Fraser: I have gone into this and I hope that what I have said today will give some reassurance and that we shall not be deflected by reports which appear to have been tendentious in some newspapers.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his indication about the prospective strengthening of the frontier police will be warmly welcomed? Will he agree that it is vital that all the obtainable evidence should be collated? Is he aware that on 3rd October, Patrick Duncan, the son of a former Governor-General and a prominent member of the South African Liberal Party, visited this hut at Qacha's Nek and during that visit discovered in the hut bloodstained cardboard which had been used for shutters? Is he further aware that those bloodstains have been analysed

by Dr. Francis Camps and that I have the analysis of that investigation here? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this indicates that the police may well have overlooked much vital evidence? Does he not agree, therefore, that there is a strong case for reconsidering the question of sending out a Scotland Yard officer?

Mr. Fraser: No, I cannot agree. The police made a thorough investigation on 16th September and, as I said, it is not absolutely certain that some of the evidence may not have been tampered with.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is uneasiness in more than one quarter of this House? While associating myself with much that has been said, may I at the same time urge upon him not to regard this incident as closed?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Meat Prices

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he is holding with the wholesale meat trade concerning prices in the trade.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): My Department is in frequent touch with the meat trade, but I am having no special consultations at present.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the very unsatisfactory situation which exists when producers' prices fall very heavily and there is no reflection in the retail price to the housewife, that urgent investigations should be made on his part to find a solution to this problem so that the prices can be adjusted quickly, to the housewives' benefit? Would not that be very advantageous?

Mr. Soames: Wholesale prices have been very low and were very low in the earlier part of this year. They have recovered somewhat in recent months. As my hon. Friend is aware, I have no control over retail prices.

Mr. Bence: Should not the right hon. Gentleman look into this, because there


has been a tremendous fall in wholesale prices of fatstock in the last couple of years, yet there has been no reflection at all in retail prices, not only for prime cuts, but for cuts of coarse meat? Coarse meat is as dear as ever, yet wholesale prices have fallen drastically.

Mr. Soames: It is not correct to say that there has been a price fall over the last two years, though the price of meat has varied considerably. There was a considerable price fall in the spring and summer of this year. It is not correct to say that there has been no reduction in retail prices. There has been some considerable reduction—particularly of the cheaper cuts of meat—although I would agree that it has not followed directly on the fall in wholesale prices.

Chemicals

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into the effect upon agriculture, public health and the ecology of the country of all chemicals used in agriculture.

Mr. Soames: The Research Study Group on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture and Food Storage has been conducting an inquiry of this kind over the last eighteen months and its Report was published two days ago. As I said at the time in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the Government accept the Group's conclusions that the protective measures now in force are generally successful, but that more fundamental and applied research is needed into various problems in this field.

Mr. Farr: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that on 28th June this year the Sixth Report of the Estimates Committee recommended that such an inquiry ought to be established as soon as possible and that there is a great deal of concern in the country generally about the long-term effects of the build-up of chemicals in our soil?

Mr. Soames: I shall comment on two points. First, we have gone a long way since June in this matter. Secondly, I shall be sending a reply on the Report of the Estimates Committee in the course of the next week.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend press on with the research which was recommended in the Report of the Study Group? Will he also bear in mind that the Report of the Study Group seems to indicate that on the whole the danger to animal life of chemicals already used in agriculture has tended to be rather exaggerated? Will he be careful not to put any undue brake on the technical advance in agriculture which has accompanied the use of these sprays?

Mr. Soames: This Report was most valuable. It stressed how important these chemicals were to agriculture and also stated that generally our arrangements were satisfactory, but there were certain fields in which there were gaps both in fundamental and applied research. We intend to press on with this.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Report available in the Vote Office?

Mr. Soames: Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to revise the notification scheme regarding chemicals used in agriculture.

Mr. Soames: This was one of the points raised by the Select Committee on Estimates in its Sixth Report. My reply to this will be sent to the Select Committee early next week. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I do not wish to anticipate that reply.

Sir J. Maitland: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he will take to reduce the number of casualties to wild life due to the use of deleterious chemicals; and what progress has been made in producing chemicals of equal agricultural efficacy which have no lethal effects.

Mr. Soames: The Research Study Group has reported that very few of the many chemicals introduced into the United Kingdom since the war have been shown to have adverse effects on wild birds and mammals. Cereal seed dressings containing aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor have caused casualties in serious numbers and I hope that the restrictions on their use, which I


announced in the House on 3rd July, will prevent this in the future. My Department will, however, intensify its survey of wild life casualties, as recommended by the Research Study Group, and consider after next season, with the interests concerned, whether any further action is necessary.
The development of new agricultural chemicals is undertaken by the manufacturing industry, who are fully conscious of the need for equally efficient but less toxic chemicals.

Sir J. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are beginning to get bird casualties again at this early period? Is he also aware that there is now evidence to show that where certain chemicals were not used there were no casualties?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. There is no doubt that these chemicals have a serious effect on wild life. Arrangements have been made as from 1st January to ensure that they will not be used in the spring, and only in the autumn in order to combat a particular form of pest which attacks wheat. These arrangements will come into effect this coming spring. Our experience in the past has shown that although there are certain casualties to wild life in the autumn they are not serious in numbers nor anything like what happened when the chemicals were used in the spring. But they will not be used this spring.

Sir G. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Estimates took a serious view on this matter. May we assume that his answers indicate that he and his Department intend to assume a greater measure of responsibility for the protection of wild life? May we also assume, while appreciating the great difficulties that face him, that the approach of his Department to this matter, which was somewhat leisurely originally, will now be one of considerable urgency?

Mr. Soames: We have been very much helped, as my hon. Friend knows, by the Sanders Report which, as I have said, we intend to implement.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has formed of the cost of

keeping an index of claims for compensation for fowl pest and for checking future claims with this index.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The annual cost of keeping a central aphabetical index of poultry-keepers who receive compensation for fowl pest would be about £150. An index of previous payments is unnecessary in order to check the validity of current payments, since compensation payments ale normally based on valuations made at the time of slaughter.

Mr. Hayman: Is not that reply extraordinary when compared with the reply the hon. Gentleman gave me on 6th November about the inordinate cost of keeping a check on such claims? May I refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement he made that one claim alone amounted to £⅓ million? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been suggested that that claimant got £250,000 last year and a substantial sum the year before? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is something that requires a thorough investigation?

Mr. Vane: My replies were not inconsistent, because the previous Question referred to making up an index of past claims. The reply today refers to the annual cost of keeping an index of future claims. It is possible to check back on any individual case where it appears to serve a useful purpose, but each claim must be decided on its individual merits.

Brucellosis Abortus

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to control the movement of cattle suffering from brucellosis and the prevent the spread of undulant fever by the milk they produce.

Mr. Vane: Our line of attack on brucellosis abortus is by way of calf vaccination. More than 94 per cent. of milk sold by retail in England and Wales is heat treated and medical officers of health have power to control the disposal of infected or suspect milk. Movement controls beyond those laid down in the Epizootic Abortion Order, 1922, would not, I think, be practicable or useful at the present time.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this vaccination does not prevent the infected cattle being sold? Will he consider, as an alternative method of dealing with this, the introduction of a simple one-Clause Bill to prohibit the sale of raw milk? If the Leader of the House will not introduce such a Bill will the Parliamentary Secretary support me if I introduce one?

Mr. Vane: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is for the Leader of the House rather than for me. With regard to the first part, the hon. Gentleman will notice that my right hon. Friend is replying to another Question on this subject later.

F.A.O. Conference, Rome

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement concerning the recent Food and Agriculture Organisation Conference in Rome, giving in particular more details of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign and the $100 million fund for the disposal of food surpluses to the developing countries.

Mr. Soames: The conference reaffirmed its support for the fine work now being done by the Freedom from Hunger Campaign Committees. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the Conference report on this item as soon as it is available.
The conference also passed a resolution proposing a World Food Programme to be run jointly by F.A.O. and the United Nations. It is designed to help less-developed countries by means of food surpluses, services and cash. This proposal is to be discussed by the United Nations next week. I am arranging for a copy of the resolution to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the utmost importance of safeguarding our existing bilateral channels of trade for these products, so that they are not disturbed by any multilateral arrangements which may be arrived at at this forthcoming conference?

Mr. Soames: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter which we

must keep very much in mind when discussing this subject.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a few weeks ago we were storing up dried milk in the event of radioactivity being harmful to liquid milk? Would it not be possible now to distribute that dried milk to the under-developed countries, since it is a perishable commodity and they will be able to use it whereas it will only go to waste if it is stored here?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. We made the arrangements to ensure that, if the need arose, there would be sufficient dried milk. That was all.

Oral Answers to Questions — DR. ADENAUER (MEETING)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will meet Dr. Adenauer to discuss the Berlin crisis.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will now state his arrangements for meeting Dr. Adenauer to discuss the Berlin crisis.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his forthcoming meeting with Dr. Adenauer.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer to the reply which I gave to similar Questions on Tuesday.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is most important to maintain Western unity in any negotiations with Mr. Khrushchev? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least agree as to the desirability of urging Dr. Adenauer to use his influence with President de Gaulle with a view to securing his agreement to negotiate over Berlin and other matters?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Regarding the meeting—which is what the Question is about—owing to indisposition Dr. Adenauer had to postpone his visit to Paris until 9th December. There is a four-Power meeting of Foreign Ministers on the 11th and 12th and that is followed by the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council. I shall be meeting President Kennedy in Bermuda on the 21st and 22nd and, therefore, it has not been possible to fit in this meeting which I should like to have had with Dr. Adenauer.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that the course of any Anglo-German relations is always dependent on the maintenance of British troop commitments in Germany? There is some doubt, to put it mildly, whether this can be done without cutting other overseas commitments or introducing some form of selective National Service. Will the Prime Minister tell the House in which frying pan he proposes to fry the British national interest? In which of the three frying pans will he put party before country?

The Prime Minister: To he drawn into this question would lead me far from the original Question, which concerns a meeting with Dr. Adenauer.

Mr. Gaitskell: While we all recognise that bilateral conversations between the Prime Minister and President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer—or, indeed, with President Kennedy—are valuable, may I nevertheless ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be simpler to have a meeting of the four Prime Ministers or political leaders concerned and thereby save a great deal of time? If no such meeting is contemplated, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects that a definitive agreement will be reached on what the Western point of view on Berlin should be?

The Prime Minister: While I agree that it would always be very convenient if we could all meet together at the same time, there are some difficulties in arranging this. There are also some objections to the great amount of publicity attached to a meeting of that kind at that stage. However, a four-Power Foreign Ministers' meeting takes place in a day of two, and that is the next step.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister say when he expects it will be possible to reach agreement—since it has been hanging about for a long time—so far as the West is concerned?

The Prime Minister: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that until this meeting next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister if, in view of President Kennedy's successful interview reported inIzvestia,he

will approach Mr. Khrushchev for similar publicity on a reciprocal basis to be given in both countries for Mr. Khrushchev and himself, respectively, so as to create better understanding as the basis for peaceful co-existence; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I had noted that the publication in Izvestia of an interview with President Kennedy opened up interesting possibilities.

Sir C. Osborne: Since world peace may well depend upon the Russian people more properly understanding our point of view and our understanding the Russian point of view, does not my right hon. Friend think that if this type of negotiation could be continued and extended it would be very helpful towards that end?

The Prime Minister: I think that this interview was very valuable. I made some effort in that direction myself, and I had the opportunity of appearing on the Russian television, which was, I think, a very unusual privilege.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: That was some years ago. Is not the hon. Gentleman's proposal a very sensible and practical one?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but it is not necessarily right immediately to follow one particular step with exactly the same thing.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Prime Minister recall that he has consistently told the House of Commons, when it has been curious about conversations which he has had with various foreign statesmen, that he could not tell us anything because the conversations were confidential? The result has been that the House has never been able to know exactly what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind about these problems. Does he appreciate that Dr. Adenauer and President Kennedy have both found ways round that difficulty, the one by a statement in the Bundestag and the other in an interview with a Soviet newspaper? Does the Prime Minister think that he might find some way of taking us a little into his confidence as to exactly how he is thinking about these problems?

The Prime Minister: I have spoken about them in various debates. What I


am anxious about now is getting a good result out of a very difficult and even critical situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister when he will complete his consideration of the representations of the hon. Member for Dewsbury regarding the publication of further statistical data on the oil industry.

The Prime Minister: Extensive statistical information on the oil industry is already published in the Annual Digests of the Ministry of Power. There are considerable difficulties in the way of publishing further data.

Mr. Ginsburg: Will the Prime Minister tell the Departments to get a move on? Is he aware that in the latest White Paper of October, 1960, comments are made on the state of the country's oil earnings but still no figures are published? What is the need for all the secrecy?

The Prime Minister: There are difficulties, about which I have been in communication with the hon. Gentleman; but the matter is being looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMMIGRANTS (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the concern in the Republic of Ireland about proposals to limit immigration of Irish people to the United Kingdom, if he will consider inviting the Prime Minister of Ireland to come to the United Kingdom to discuss the question.

The Prime Minister: I see no reason to expect that consultation through normal diplomatic channels will not meet the case.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that there is in Ireland great interest in the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill? If he is going out of his way to meet President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer, ought not the Prime Minister to extend the same sort of treatment to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I think that this is being dealt with satisfactorily by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since the Home Secretary informed the House that he had only obtained from the newspapers an account of the Irish Government's intentions in this matter, could the Prime Minister tell us what has, in fact, been the nature of these diplomatic exchanges? Have there been discussions through diplomatic channels, and to what end?

The Prime Minister: We have, of course, been having discussions through diplomatic channels on the general problem. I think that any specific Question should be put to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are concerned about the indeterminate nature of the proposal to control immigration from the Republic of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: This is really a matter for debate on the Bill, not for questions as to whether I should meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Grimond: The Home Secretary told us that he understood that arrangements were being made with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to control immigration at the ports within Ireland. Is not the Prime Minister in a position either to confirm or deny this statement of the Home Secretary's?

The Prime Minister: If the Home Secretary said so, it obviously was true.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Secretary said, not that he was certain that this was the case, but that he had read it in the newspapers? Is the Prime Minister telling us that we should believe everything we read in the newspapers? Further, is it the business of the Home Secretary to negotiate with Ireland on this matter? Is it not a matter for either the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations or the Foreign Secretary?

The Prime Minister: I suggest, therefore, that it should be put either to the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Mr. Gaitskell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have an idea that there will be other opportunities to discuss these matters. I think that we had better get on.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. DONALD FLEMING (CONVERSATIONS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his conversations with Mr. Donald Fleming, Finance Minister of Canada.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House in answer to Questions last week, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said on 27th November.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that, throughout the conduct of the Common Market negotiations, there will always be a danger of precisely this kind of misunderstanding occurring again? What steps does he propose to take to ensure that there are not these accusations of bad faith once more?

The Prime Minister: I trust that they will not take place. I think that the whole question was very adequately discussed in the House, and I do not think that I can add to it in supplementary question and answer now.

Mr. Healey: In view of the very widespread and publicly expressed dissatisfaction in Canada, and particularly in Canadian Government circles, at the way in which the British Government have handled Canadian interests so far in the negotiations, will the Prime Minister consider visiting Ottawa either before or after his forthcoming visit to meet the American President in Bermuda?

The Prime Minister: I have several times been to Canada, of course, and I am always happy to do so. I shall bear that in mind. I was hoping that either that might be possible or that the Prime Minister himself could find time to visit our country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On his way to Ottawa, if he thinks of going there, will the Prime Minister think of calling in at Dublin?

The Prime Minister: Shannon used to be on the way to Ottawa. Bermuda is not.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP AND OFFICE WORKERS

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister when he received from the Aberdeen area branch of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers a recent letter protesting against Her Majesty's Government's continued delay in introducing legislation to protect the health, welfare and safety of workers in shops and offices; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: I received the letter to which the Question refers on 30th November. I sent the hon. and learned Member on 6th December a copy of the reply which was sent to the Branch Secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister realise that that situation is completely intolerable? Is he aware that these workers have been waiting for the protection suggested in the Question for a very long time? The Government have promised them that protection but they have broken their promises. Will they now keep their promises in this matter?

The Prime Minister: As has been explained, it is the intention to introduce the Bill next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with President Kennedy at the forthcoming Bermuda meeting the problem of control and inspection, as the principal obstacle to a disarmament agreement, with a view to putting forward a practical solution.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he wilt discuss the need for revision of United Nations policy in the Congo rendered necessary by recent developments.

The Prime Minister: My conversations with President Kennedy will, naturally, be confidential. But, as I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman on Tuesday, we shall discuss the international situation, and all the important


current problems, I hope, will be covered.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind in his discussions with President Kennedy on the problem of disarmament the proposals which have emanated from a group of American and Russian scientists who have suggested that control and inspection should be exercised on a zonal basis with a view to reducing the fear of espionage from the Soviet point of view?

The Prime Minister: Many suggestions have been made. I must frankly say that in the discussions now going on at Geneva the attitude of the Russians to the question of inspection is not very encouraging.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the question of inspection for a test ban is totally different from the question of inspection for general disarmament, and that the Russians have always made that plain and so has President Kennedy?

The Prime Minister: What is rather disappointing is that, whereas they did accept that position at a time when we got almost two-thirds of the way to an agreement on tests, they are now taking the position that it must be part of a general disarmament discussion and agreement.

Mr. Rankin: Reverting to the particular subject of my Question, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government are deeply committed to the policy of the United Nations in the Congo? Will the Prime Minister assure us now that after his meeting with the President of the United States that commitment will still remain untarnished?

The Prime Minister: This has been discussed in the House. It does not wait for that particular meeting. We shall discuss it again. We are, of course, committed to the resolutions which have been passed, subject on certain points to reservations which we have made, and we with the United States are practically the only Powers making any effective financial contribution.

Mr. H. Wilson: But in view of the differing nature of the statements being

put out on successive days by Washington and the statement we had from the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, does not the Prime Minister feel that it is a matter of urgency that the two Heads of Government should discuss the matter so that, at the very least, each Government will know the point of view of the other?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But, without waiting for that date, which is still a little ahead, discussions on this matter are proceeding in the normal way through diplomatic channels all the time. But, of course, strange as it may be, it will naturally be included in the matters that we shall try to discuss in the two days that I have with the President.

Mr. Grimond: Speaking as one of the 50 million people in this country who are very confused about what is happening in the Congo, will the Prime Minister at some stage try to enlighten us on one or two points? First, can he throw any light on the suggestion that Mr. Tshombe's finances are entirely supplied by the Union Minière? Secondly, apart from defending itself, can he say exactly what the United Nations force in the Congo is now doing? If it is restoring order, is it doing so on behalf of the United Nations, on behalf of the Central Government, or on whose behalf?

The Prime Minister: I think that we have discussed the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question before. I understand that it is likely to be debated again. It is trying to carry out the duties put on the staff of the United Nations by the resolutions which have been passed, which we understand to mean to use the minimum force, and only when necessary, to try to use its work to bring about harmony and reconciliation and the formation of a satisfactory arrangement. That is its duty.
With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have no doubt that the companies operating in Katanga pay revenue, according to the law, to the country.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the history and origins of the great American people, will the Prime Minister appeal to the President of the United States not


to use United States' resources through the United Nations organisation to try to impose on the Katanga people a regime that they do not want?

The Prime Minister: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to take part in the formation of these resolutions and, having supported them, to give their full support to those who try to carry them out. But we have a right and a duty to try to make sure that they are carried out in the spirit in which the United Nations pass them.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case that the United States Government regard the United Nations as having been attacked by Mr. Tshombe's forces and that on this account, and because they were acting in self-defence, the United States Government have, I think, sent some aeroplanes to help them? Will the Prime Minister confirm that that is also the view of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: The last incidents are still very confused. I understand that the situation which is now developing has not resulted from the last resolution but is merely an attempt to prevent the United Nations forces from being in danger.

Mr. H. Wilson: While I think that all of us showed considerable restraint in accepting, without an opportunity of hearing the Government on the question, certain allegations made this week on the whole issue, now that these allegations have been backed, not only by the military commander in the Congo, but today by Mr. Nehru, will the Prime Minister recognise the desirability of a senior member of Her Majesty's Government taking a very early opportunity to deal in detail with the whole history of this affair so that the Government, if they are able, can clear themselves of all charges that have been made or, if not, so that the House can take appropriate action?

The Prime Minister: I think that we have had a debate in which the Government's position was made quite clear. I understood that there was the likelihood of a debate before Christmas in which this matter could be raised, but that will come later. That seems to be more satisfactory than that I should try to answer supplementary questions on a very tangled and difficult situation.

COMMITTEE OF 100 (DEMONSTRATIONS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. G. BROWN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that an organisation known as the Committee of 100 is planning to demonstrate at Wethersfield and other places on Saturday, 9th December, with the declared intention of disrupting the prison and police forces; in view of the fact that these proposals threaten to lead to a breakdown of law and order, what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 59.
My right hon. Friend has been informed of the intention of this body to obstruct the entrance to a United States Air Force headquarters, to attempt to enter two airfields occupied by United States forces, and to hold demonstrations which may involve breaches of the law in Cardiff, Bristol, York and Manchester. He understands that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has authorised the taking of all necessary steps, in consultation with the police and the United States Air Force, to prevent unauthorised entry upon the airfields; and he has no doubt that in the other areas any necessary action will be taken by the chief officers of police concerned.
My right hon. Friend would like to take the opportunity of pointing out that these airfields are prohibited places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Acts, and that under Section 1 of the Act of 1911 any person who, for any purposes prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, approaches, or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any such prohibited place, is guilty of a felony. It is important that there should be no failure on the part of those planning the demonstrations to appreciate the gravity of the offences for which those participating in them may render themselves liable to be prosecuted.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that, while there is plenty of room for argument about the merits of this case,


and while no one wishes to prevent people from taking every lawful opportunity to demonstrate their feelings—as far as I am concerned, if they want to sit in Trafalgar Square they can sit there as long as they wish—infiltrating into an airfield under modern conditions is a highly dangerous operation, highly dangerous to other people as well as to those doing it?
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that a declared intention to disrupt the forces of law and order—the police and the prison officials—cannot be permitted in a modern democratic State? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore ensure that, in order that we support the police who have to carry out this operation, plans are laid well in advance to make sure that the forces of law and order are operative from the very beginning?

Mr. Renton: I greatly appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said It is for the reasons that he has mentioned that we have taken these precautions, which we are quite sure will be effective.

Mr. Wilkins: May, I first, make it quite clear that I am not a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? May I ask the Minister of State how he comes to embrace in his reply the position in Bristol, where there is no airfield, and where, according to today's Press reports, or yesterday's newspapers received today in London, the C.N.D. demonstrators have given an undertaking that their procession will be of an orderly character? They do not wish to disrupt in any way the life of the city and they have simply sought permission to hold a public meeting after their procession.
That is the extent of the threat, if that is what it is called, in what these people propose to do. I am concerned with the preservation of civil liberties and the right of people to hold a peaceful demonstration if they so wish. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to say why this is linked with the proposal of sit-down or passive resistance at airfields.

Mr. Renton: Those who are planning these operations have referred to their intention to stage demonstrations in

Bristol as well as in the other cities that I mentioned. It is the responsibility of the chief officer of police in each of those cities to ensure that law and order is upheld.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is reported in some sections of the Press that the demonstrators, or some of them, at these airfields are actually paid by the Committee of 100? Can he confirm that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for these observations in the Press.

Mr. Shinwell: Is part of the Government's plan to prevent disorder to search people's homes and, in the process of searching them, to refuse to allow people to telephone their solicitor?

Mr. Renton: Any question concerning application for a search warrant is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The question of the steps to be taken by the police in obtaining search warrants, and so on, is part of the ordinary process of maintaining law and order.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Minister think that, in the interests of law and order, if premises are searched the sooner people have an opportunity of taking legal advice about the position the better?

Mr. Renton: Yes, and I do not think that anyone has been prevented from taking legal advice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Member is referring to the complaint which has been made by Mr. Dixon, according to my information a fellow resident whose room had already been searched visited the room of Mr. Dixon while it was being searched and asked if he could use the telephone. The police inspector who was present said that he would prefer him to wait until the search had been completed, which was in five or six minutes. Of course, it is open to Mr. Dixon to make any complaint to the Commissioner of Police in accordance with Statute, but I see no ground for action on my part.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that the Question was about was the maintenance


of law and order in these particular circumstances and not all these sort of things.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. The Minister of State has referred to the Government's plan to prevent disorder. Obviously, part of the plan, which was referred to yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who sought to raise the matter by asking for the Adjournment of the House, refers to interference with the liberties of the subject. What I want to ascertain from the Minister of State, or from the Attorney-General, whoever is responsible, is why anybody was prevented from using the telephone to discuss the matter with a solicitor or anybody else. What right have the Government to interfere with the liberties of the subject?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a question to the Attorney-General. It is a question to the Secretary of State by the Home Department, which is being answered by the Minister of State.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Minister aware that it is open to him to institute charges against anyone who breaks the peace on Saturday under other enactments than the Official Secrets Act? Is it not as grave as possible an interference with civil liberties that the Official Secrets Act should be invoked?

Mr. Renton: May I enlighten the hon. Lady? It is not for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to institute charges against anybody, because he is not a prosecuting authority. The prosecuting authorities are the chief officers of police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Minister aware that according to a precedent in 1924, the then Attorney-General told the House that it was the responsibility of the executive Government to consider the public interest in any prosecutions of this kind that were made?

Mr. Renton: I have stated the constitutional position as it is and as it has been for many years. If there is a so-called authority to the contrary effect, I would naturally, bearing in mind that it is so many years ago, wish to have an opportunity of considering it. In any event, I would have thought that the right person to consider such a

matter was my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gaitskell. Business Question.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order. May I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, consideration of the Motions on the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services and on Summer Time.
TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Further consideration of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH DECEMBER—Completion of the Committee stage of the Army Reserve Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by seven o'clock.
Report and Third Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.
Consideration of the Motions on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) and the South of Scotland Electricity Board Orders.
THURSDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—A debate on Foreign Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of the Motions on the Anti-Dumping Duty, and the Hops (Import Regulation) Orders.
FRIDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when a debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to


Government Policy on Incomes and Productivity.
Consideration of the Motions on the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme, and the White Fish and Herring (Aggregate Amount of Grants) (No. 2) Order.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is intended to propose that we should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday, 21st December, until Tuesday, 23rd January.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in our opinion, it is wholly unrealistic to suppose that the Committee stage of the Army Reserve Bill will be completed by seven o'clock on Wednesday? If, as I understand, the Report and Third Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill is a rather urgent matter, would it not be wiser to put it as the first Order and to put the Committee stage of the Army Reserve Bill second, when we can, no doubt, make progress with it during the day?
Secondly, may I ask a question concerning Thursday's business? The debate is to be on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I presume, therefore, that it can range widely, but I should like to know whether it is the Government's view that it should be confined in any way. For the convenience of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the debate will cover not only Katanga and the Congo question, to which the Prime Minister referred a little earlier, but also Berlin and the forthcoming meeting between the Prime Minister and President Kennedy?

Mr. Macleod: I will look again at Wednesday's business, although I feel that the order which I have announced is the most suitable one.
We have tried to meet the convenience of the House by arranging a debate on foreign affairs, which the House generally seems to want, and the Opposition, for their Supply day, are putting down the other main subject on which I have been asked questions when making previous business statements.
Although, naturally, it is for the Chair to rule on the matter, certainly

Thursday's debate would cover all the matters that have been in the headlines recently in relation to the Congo and Katanga and Government spokesmen will deal fully with those points.

Mr. Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to conclude the Committee stage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill next Tuesday?

Mr. Macleod: On the whole, I think probably not.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Leader of the House saying that on Thursday, in addition to considering the Government's record in regard to the Congo, we shall be expected also to discuss such urgent matters as Berlin, disarmament, and all the rest of international affairs? Surely, we should have a separate day on Katanga and another on international affairs generally.

Mr. Macleod: It is not a question of right hon. and hon. Members being expected to discuss any particular problem. The debate will be on foreign affairs, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. What I said was that there would be Government statements on matters in relation to the Congo and Katanga, which were particularly referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. I take it, however, that, subject to the ruling of the Chair, any matter concerning foreign affairs would be in order.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I ask a question about the business for Monday week? I know that the Leader of the House is conforming to the modern tradition of putting Motions on fish Orders last, so that they begin probably late at night, as usually happens. Will he kindly allocate the business for that day in such a way that those Motions will not come on late at night and there will be adequate opportunity for proper debate on them?

Mr. Macleod: This is not the Bill. These are Motions on the White Fish Subsidy Scheme and the White Fish and Herring Subsidy Order and I think that it is for the convenience of the House that these should follow the major subject for the day which is the Opposition's choice. There will be an Opposition Amendment relating to Government policy on incomes and productivity.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he promised me last Thursday a debate on the Toothill Report. [Laughter.] English Members should know that the "h" is often silent. [An HON. MEMBER: "More silent than the hon. Member."] Since then, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, this week, has stated that the development of scientific research in Scotland depends to some extent on the consideration that is to be given to the Toothill Report? Does he not agree that indicates that there should be a very early debate on the Report?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the hon. Member knows, as I am sure that he has looked up HANSARD, that all I said in reply to him last week was:
Certainly not before Christmas. I will bear in mind the possibility of a later day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 631.]

Mr. V. Yates: Will the Leader of the House consider the growing sense of frustration that many hon. Members on the back benches on both sides of the House feel at the continual lack of opportunity to speak in the House on matters of major importance, like the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, when one day is allowed for Second Reading on a matter which is vital to everybody and for which, when one takes out the speeches made by Privy Councillors on both sides of the House, there is very little time left?
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a debate next Thursday ranging over the whole of foreign affairs in one day is entirely satisfactory and Gives hon. Members on the back benches an adequate opportunity to voice their opinions? If we cannot have adequate time to take part in major discussions in the House, outside Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. I have been in the House sixteen years—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]—and it is about time—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member left."]—that the back benchers—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that we cannot have speeches during the time devoted to questions about the business of the House.

Mr. Yates: If hon. Members will permit me to put adequately the view of

hon. Members on this side of the House, and, I think, of many hon. Members opposite, who—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever hon. Members do, I am giving the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to ask a question, instead of making a speech.

Mr. Yates: Then I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of this sense of frustration, he will consider allocating more time to foreign affairs and the other vital matters which are under consideration by the Government at the present time?

Mr. Macleod: There has been considerable pressure recently when the business statement is made on a Thursday for a debate on foreign affairs. I had hoped that we should be able to arrange it before Christmas and that has proved possible in Government time. I am sure that that meets the wishes of the House. The hon. Member knows very well that the selection of speakers is not a matter for me.

Mr. Hale: As it appears from the present state of the Order Paper that the debate on Tuesday will open with a discussion of the Irish question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a formal statement will be made before Tuesday about the continued reading of English and Irish newspapers by the Home Secretary and whether that has produced anything approaching clarity of mind or some measure of certitude about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?

Mr. Macleod: The first Amendment which we shall be discussing on Tuesday is the one on which all these matters arise and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will reply to it with his customary clarity.

Mrs. Castle: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reconstitute Mr. Speaker's Committee on Accommodation in view of the widespread support for the work of that Committee from both sides of the House?

Mr. Macleod: There are, as the hon. Lady knows, differing views on this matter. I have no present plans for bringing any such proposal before the House.

Mr. S. Silverman: On another point, could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has in mind in the near future to offer an opportunity to the House to discuss Civil Defence? Will he bear in mind that there has been no debate on Civil Defence in the House since 1955 and that the whole picture of Civil Defence has been changed by the Defence White Paper of 1957?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the opportunity that might have appeared on a Private Member's Motion the other Friday to afford such a discussion was not available because the first Motion took the whole of the time? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time the House had an opportunity of discussing this very important matter and that it has been delayed too long?

Mr. Macleod: I agree that it is an important matter, but the hon. Member will realise from the business I have mentioned that there is not likely to be an opportunity before Christmas

Mrs. Castle: Further to my previous question, may I ask whether the Leader of the House is aware that the Committee on Accommodation, which is an all-party Committee, has proceeded with great harmony and unanimity in producing its Report? Can he tell the House, therefore, where the differing views to which he refers come from and whether they are not confined to the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Macleod: I will make further inquiries into this matter, but, certainly, differing views have been expressed to me on it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Leader of the House appreciate that most of us, and, I think, all of us on this side of the House, regard the work of that Committee as of great value and that we should regret it if it were not continued? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this is a matter which should be, and I hope will be, discussed through the usual channels, to try to reach agreement?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. We will gladly discuss this through the usual channels.

SUSPENSION OF SITTING (POSITION OF MACE)

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is the wish of the House that I should try to help about doubts which arose yesterday.
I have to steer my course, picking my way between two difficulties. First, as Speaker, I know nothing about what happens in Committee. Secondly, I do not wish to breach our wise rule that the Chair does not rule on hypothetical situations, and if I get beguiled into doing that I ask the House to regard it as a lapse in attempting to help the House rather than as a precedent.
The facts are these. I see by the Votes and Proceedings that the Chairman of Ways and Means left the Chair of the Committee on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill to report that grave disorder had arisen in the Committee, and that he resumed the Chair of the House as Deputy-Speaker and suspended the sitting for half-an-hour under Standing Order No. 24.
I understand that it is contended that the Deputy-Speaker suspended the House before the Mace was replaced upon the Table, and I am now asked what is the constitutional position if that contention is correct.
I am not prepared to accept the theory that no proceedings can take place when the Speaker is in the Chair and the Mace is not on the Table, since, for instance, when an offender is brought to the Bar of the House, the Mace is on the shoulder of the Serjeant at Arms. But I think it likely that, though certain proceedings can be taken without the Mace being on the Table, no vote of the House, even if it were arrived at unanimously, could be properly taken in these circumstances.
The House will understand that I have had only limited time, in relation to other duties that had to be performed also this morning, and I know of no precise precedent. But it is my view that suspension upon grave disorder, arising pursuant to Standing Order No. 24, is not an operation which would be invalidated just because the Mace was in the wrong position. It has the characteristic of being an act of the


Chair in isolation as the servant of the House rather than an act of the whole House itself, like a vote is. My view, as I say, is that in these circumstances suspension is not invalidated by the Mace being in the wrong position.

Mr. G. Brown: While expressing the gratitude of the whole House for the way in which you have dealt with this problem in the short time available to you, Mr. Speaker, may I perhaps presume upon your remark, that you have not, understandably, had a lot of time, to offer a few considerations which I am sure that many of us would like you to take further into account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is obviously a matter which we need to get clear, and I am sure that most hon. Members will be glad to have a further Ruling by Mr. Speaker after further consideration.
The point about the occasion when somebody is called to the Bar of the House would seem to be, according to statements in Erskine May, that the Mace must be either upon the Table or be borne before Mr. Speaker. In the case of somebody called to the Bar, it is clearly being borne before you, Mr. Speaker, and is still evidently visible as the symbol of your authority. Our point about last night was that, since we were then presuming to meet as a House, the Mace was not at that stage visibly evident as a symbol of that authority. I, too, have tried to consult what precedents exist.

Sir Lionel Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is already addressing me on a point of order. I will hear the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) about his point of order afterwards. I cannot take in more than one at a time.

Mr. Brown: The precedent I would like to commend to you, Mr. Speaker, is a statement quoting the words of a Mr. John Hatsell, who was Clerk of the House from 1768 to 1797 and who was the author of the book which preceded Erskine May, and which, until Erskine May, bore the same relation to the House

as Erskine May does nowadays. Hatsell, as quoted by Mr. Norman Wilding, in his book on Parliament, says:
When the Mace lies upon the Table the House is a House; when under, it is a Committee; when out of the House, no business can be done.
First, I submit to you that last night the Mace was not upon the Table and, therefore, we were not a House. As the Mace was, in fact, out of the House, no business could be done. Further, as evidenced by Mr. Hatsell's doctrine having survived beyond the end of the eighteenth century, it is pointed out by Wilding that in the middle of the nineteenth century it once happened that the House was forced to postpone its sitting because the officer who held the key of the Mace cupboard was missing. Since he was missing, the Mace could not be obtained, and since the Mace could not be obtained it was ruled by your predecessor at that time that the House could not sit. I therefore submit, secondly, that there is ample precedent on which to rule that we nowadays require the Mace to be in its proper position.
My third submission is that this is an ancient precedent and is, therefore, not lightly to be set aside. As best I was able in the short time available, I inquired how old this precedent is. It will be known to us all that none of our present-day precedents has stood for ever. Indeed, nothing about the law of this country has stood for ever, since the Common Law has been built up by decisions taken and precedents established. But I have discovered that in 1640 Mr. Pym said:
 … it is a new doctrine, that wee can doe nothing without a Speaker, or the Mace.
By the end of the seventeenth century it had already become generally accepted that the Mace must be brought into the House before the House could consider itself properly constituted. That is the view expressed in a pamphlet issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and written by the present Deputy Serjeant at Arms, appearing as Document No. 3 in the series called, "The House of Commons Library".
It is the sum of my three submissions, which we ask you further to consider, that, for more than 200 years, it has been the practice that the Mace being in the


House means that it is in its proper place—on the Table or on the Serjeant at Arm's shoulder—and that there is no provision for its being anywhere else in the House.
I therefore submit that many of us who care for the traditions of this House and for its authority would be greatly indebted to you if you would consider this matter still further, taking into account all the precedents, among other things.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to say that I made a statement because I understood that it was the common wish of the House that I should do so, but I do not think that that extended my invitation to allowing irregular discussion of the matter now. I do not say that to be discourteous, but because I think that we should put some limit to it. Sir Lionel Heald.

Sir L. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you give us your guidance and Ruling? At the conclusion of proceedings last night it was understood that you would give a Ruling on this matter, and you have been good enough to give it. Are we to understand that that Ruling is not debatable? I understood that that was the position, and I must apologise for intervening earlier in order to object to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) making a speech on the matter.
I would ask, in the interests not only of the particular points which gave rise to this but of many occasions in the last few days and before, that it should be laid down quite clearly that, when the Chair has ruled upon a point of order, it is not possible for it to be further debated.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right where there be a firm Ruling, but there may, of course, be the circumstances in which the Chair, before making a firm Ruling, is inviting such assistance as the House can give him. That, I confess, is not so in this case but, in view of what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, I will look at the right hon. Member for Belper's precedents and, of course caring for the traditions and

rules and regulation and practice of the House as much as anybody, if I entertain any suspicion that my Ruling is thereby rendered in any way wrong, I will say so. Otherwise, it is a firm one.

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate that you cannot take notice of what happened in Committee, is there some method of drawing the attention of the appropriate authorities to the fact that proceedings would be greatly assisted if the sound amplifying system were improved? A great deal of trouble has arisen because it appears that the microphone suitable for the Chairman is behind and not in front of him.
Further, while I appreciate your Ruling that it is not essential for the Mace to be on the Table to constitute a sitting of the House, when you are further considering the points raised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), as, I understand, you have kindly undertaken to do, will you also consider informing the House what are the absolute criteria which must be fulfilled to constitute a proper sitting of the House as a House? I have always understood that mere occupation of Mr. Speaker's Chair was insufficient and that other criteria had to be fulfilled. The House would be greatly obliged, if, in due course, you would give your Ruling upon that matter as well.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to range over hypothetical regions. I am satisfied that in this context there is no invalidity in what happened thereafter in the totality of last night's circumstances, upon any conceivable view—and I really have looked at that—even if the Mace was not upon the Table at the moment of suspension.
On the extraneous matter of accoustics, I have received complaints from hon. Members. I have noticed that hon. Members tend to have their ears glued to the loudspeakers much more than before. I have also noticed that I sometimes fail, when speaking in a normal way, to make myself heard. I was proposing this very day—I have been deflected by other matters—to write to the Minister of Works asking that the whole matter should be looked at in the Recess. I do not think that there will be an opportunity before that.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not the effect of your Ruling that the deliberations of the House or in Committee, are not invalidated by the position of the Mace, Mr. Speaker? If that be so, can you tell the House why we should go through this procedure of removing the Mace from the Table and putting it below?

Mr. Speaker: That is not the effect of my Ruling. What I have said was that in my view the validity of the act of suspension pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 is not dependent upon the Mace being in the right place.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry to trouble you again on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I think that you will agree that it is important in the history of Parliament. You were kind enough to say that you not had very much time to consider it, and we all appreciate that. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney a and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in asking whether you would give further and more comprehensive consideration to this question, for I feel that it would be very useful if you carefully considered your Ruling on the whole question, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, as to what precisely has to be done before we can sit as a House, when it is necessary to have the Mace there, and when it is not necessary.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentle man the Leader of the Opposition lets me get past Scylla, but navigates me into Charybdis and invites me to give Rulings on hypothetical circumstances which do not arise. I am not being discourteous about it, but there is peril in spreading the matter too wide.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There is another fundamental issue which I do not want to raise now, but on which I would like advice, Mr. Speaker. The incidents of last night occurred in Committee. What redress do hon. Members have in respect of the conduct of the Chair in Committee if Mr. Speaker does not deal with it?

Mr. Speaker: If I heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) rightly, he was seeking to

raise with me something which happened in Committee. That he cannot do, because, I do not have any official relation with that at all.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that, Sir, but if we cannot raise it with Mr. Speaker, whose historical duty is to defend private Members, what redress have private Members?

Mr. Speaker: That does not help me. I do not preside over what happens in Committee.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of what you said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I, at the risk of incurring some displeasure, submit this to you, Mr. Speaker? You said that your difficulty about considering your Ruling further and the point made to you by my right hon. Friend and by the had right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party was that to do so led you towards the Charybdis of hypothetical cases.
May I submit that this is no longer hypothetical case, for it has actually occurred? We conducted last night some proceedings which appeared to some of us not to satisfy the requirements which, from our reading of the precedents which you were good enough to allow me to quote, and which have existed over 200 years, would have been required. Does not that mean that this case is no longer hypothetical? If your Ruling stands as it appears to stand at the moment, we appear to have upset those precedents on an occasion which, you have been good enough to say, you have not had much time to consider.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I have no authority to allow the right hon. Gentleman to argue about it now. I do not mean any sort or kind of discourtesy. What I meant was that there was a problem in concrete from for me to decide in the first instance, namely, whether or not suspension is invalidated because the Mace is not in the right position. I do not want to go outside that and consider other circumstances which might arise hereafter in some other way. That is what I meant.

Mr. Brown: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and only because the mater is of enormous importance and for no other reason, and as we have no


other opportunity to put the point to you except when you are kind enough to make a statement, may I make a further submission? I have submitted precedents over two centuries. We believe those precedents to be valid. May we ask whether you would be good enough further to consider your Ruling and indicate on what occasions and under what circumstances it shall apply and whether you will consider the precedents and previous Rulings before a new Ruling is established?

Mr. Speaker: I have said that I will look at what the right hon. Gentleman put to me and, of course, I will. But I do not propose to say anything else about it, unless I find that my Ruling was wrong.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In the interests of ourselves and our successors, who might be misled, may I suggest that you later give us the reasons which led you to think that these proceedings were not invalidated? Our successors and ourselves might otherwise be misled about what does or does not constitute a House in other circumstances. If your Ruling were given just like that, and without reasons, it might be held to go much further than you intend. I fully understand and appreciate your desire not to give reasons in general, but on this occasion you might consider it worth your while to do so.

Mr. Speaker: If it be thought that there might be any dubiety—that is the word—about the matter, I will say that my Ruling applies to nothing at all except to circumstances where the Mace is not in the right place and when there is a suspension under Standing Order No. 24.

Sir H. Butcher: You have been good enough, Mr. Speaker, to say that on behalf of the House you will conduct a certain amount of research into our precedents. If, as a by-product of such research, it is found that in recent years the habit of discussing certain Rulings with the Chair has increased, may I ask you not to hesitate to say so, so that we may conform to the more orderly methods of our predecessors?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. Since I came into the

service of the House I have been trying gradually to get round to that position and I have had much help from the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order. Would you also take into account, Mr. Speaker, the new procedure of the Patronage Secretary intervening in our affairs—

Mr. Speaker: In no circumstances can the hon. Member have a right to address me about that now.

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. May I venture to suggest that when the Minister of Works investigates the microphones, he considers not only new microphones but the possibility of reverting to the pre-war practice of not having microphones, which might help the proceedings of the House generally?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I am sure that all the technical aspects will be considered, including, I hope, some examination of the microphones which we had before and which seemed to be satisfactory.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (RETURN FROM WEST AFRICA)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her return from Her tour of West Africa with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
I am sure that this Motion will commend itself to the House. A month ago, on the eve of Her Majesty's departure for West Africa, the House joined me in sending her our warmest good wishes for the success of her tour and a safe return.
Now the Queen is safely back with us. I venture to say that of the many journeys which she and His Royal Highness have so tirelessly undertaken, none has been crowned with greater success than this. In the space of four short weeks, Her Majesty and her husband have visited two independent members of the Commonwealth, one territory yet a dependency of the United Kingdom, one friendly foreign country, and passed through another.
Those who have had the pleasure of seeing for themselves something of the lands and peoples of West Africa will not have been surprised at the generous warmth of the reception given to Her Majesty and Prince Philip, a welcome at once respectful yet genial, formal yet friendly.
This is not the occasion for me to attempt to forecast the effects in the long term of Her Majesty's tour, but this I would confidently say, that the affection towards Her Majesty, so warmly demonstrated and strengthened by her presence, will be a powerful and living memory in the hearts of the people of West Africa. Nor shall we in this country forget the welcome given to the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.
The tireless devotion shown by Her Majesty and His Royal Highness to their wide ranging, and, it seems, expanding duties, and their quiet and unspectacular courage, are an inspiration to us all. His Royal Highness is now in Tanganyika attending the celebration of yet another independent member of the Commonwealth.
We welcome back Her Majesty and assure her and His Royal Highness of our loyalty and affection, and our grateful thanks.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am happy to support the Motion proposed by the Prime Minister, and to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with what he said. It is always a pleasure to welcome back the Queen from these Commonwealth tours, but there are special reasons why we do so on this occasion. There was some anxiety before she went, and although our fears were much allayed before she went to Ghana, nevertheless we are glad that they have proved to be quite unfounded.
We are also glad, once again, to record the excellent work she has done in

the Commonwealth on this tour as on so many others, and hope, also, that in the course of these last days and weeks she managed to find a little time to enjoy herself not only watching dancing, but actually dancing a "high-life" herself.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, support the Motion? We join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on a most successful and exhausting tour, and welcome them home.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I feel strongly that somebody should take this opportunity of paying tribute to the courage of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues in recommending that this tour should go forward, which must have been a very difficult decision to come to in the circumstances, and also paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the staunch way in which he associated himself with that decision.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: May I, respectfully and briefly, support the Motion? I do so for this reason, that I think it is well that we should recall almost the first words used by Her Majesty when she arrived in Ghana and was welcomed by about 50,000 Ghanaians. She said:
This family of nations, embracing peoples in all continents and of all races and creeds, is one to which we are all proud to belong.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her return from Her tour of West Africa with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to reserves for the regular army, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RETENTION OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN IN ARMY SERVICE.)

4.26 p.m.

The Chairman: In calling the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to move the first Amendment, perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee if I said that it is proposed to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments: Nos. 5 and 7, page 1, line 15, and page 1, line 21 and No. 36, Clause 2, page 2, line 36.
I do not propose to call these other Amendments for a Division.

Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "passing" and to insert:
making of an order under subsection (3) of this section".
Sir Gordon, I would he much obliged if you would clear up one point. If we are to discuss the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 36 with the Amendment that I have moved, I take it that it will be for the convenience of the Committee, and that you will not object, if, at least in passing, I mention the contents of Clause 2 to illustrate the point that that the Amendments to Clause 1 and Clause 2 seek to do the same thing. I should be in some difficulty if you ruled that I could not refer to Clause 2 in my opening remarks.

The Chairman: That will be in order.

Mr. Wigg: If the Bill is passed without the Amendments I seek to insert, the

effect will be that the Government will have power to hold men who are at present serving for a further six months, they will have power to recall to the Colours National Service men who have completed their service, and they will not be required to account to the House for the circumstances in which they exercise those powers, the number of men involved, or the nature of their purpose.
Our proceeding have been held up somewhat this afternoon by a discussion on the Mace. A great captain-general once had some comments to make about the Mace. He exercised his authority through the Armed Forces of the Crown, and he came here with a posse and suggested that the Parliament of the time should do with the Mace something other than was suggested for it this afternoon. One of the results of this conflict is that over the last three centuries the House of Commons has required the Executive to account to the House in detail for their administration of the Armed Forces.
Until comparatively recently we had the annual Army Bill, by which the numbers were closely controlled. Indeed, the doctrine itself by which that control is exercised arose because the King sought to expend money to pay that was voted for rations, and thereby increase his power by raising the number of men called in. I am not suggesting that the Government are seeking to do that. They are seeking to do something far worse. They are seeking to take measures without telling the House of Commons or the country the real reason why they seek these measures, or the purposes for which they are seeking them.
4.30 p.m.
I turn to the speech of the Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate. He told us that at the moment there are about 50,000 National Service men. He said that of that number 25,000 would not be required—that is to say, men due for release before 1st April. After that time, he said, he would have to hold some of them; probably all the men who were in Germany, no numbers being given. He said that some of the men serving in the Far East or other theatres might be discharged in the early stages, but others would certainly be fetched back to this country


and then sent to the Army of the Rhine. No numbers were given.
This is very interesting. I am sure that the Secretary of State regards himself and his staff as ultra recruiting sergeants. They are engaged in getting recruits wherever they can—from Fiji, from the West Indies, and from similar places. It is interesting to see what their view of the Army is. When dealing with the measures undertaken with great courage by the Labour Government in 1950 the Secretary of State, then in opposition, rejected the theory of sharing equal misery.
That does not help anyone. I would describe service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, whether Regular or National Service, as a privilege. I would not have thought that it helped recruiting to tell our young men that they were going to suffer equal misery and that service in the Armed Forces was so utterly miserable that we would not ask more people to do it than was absolutely necessary. I would have thought that a Secretary of State who was really charged with a sense of purpose and who was proud of the Service for which he spoke in the House would have said to young men, "We are helping you to do your duty. It is your privilege, in a democracy, to serve your country." To talk about it as a sharing of equal misery is a kind of Freudian slip, which explains many of the Secretary of State's other actions.
We understand from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) that the right hon. Gentleman has decorated his War Office room in a pastel shade. I would have thought that in view of some of the proposals in the Bill he might have inserted a stained glass window, in which would be contained a picture of the late Fred Karno, sitting suitably with a soda water bottle by his side.

Mr. John Hall: Is that not rather appropriate, considering the wonderful record which Fred Karno's army had?

Mr. Wigg: It was a wonderful record. I am merely saying that the present Army is an Army of bits and pieces, without a pattern. I am putting the matter in a light and frivolous way because it is my view that at some point

the Secretary of State must tell us the number of men he wants, when he wants them, and the purpose for which he wants them. Above all, he must tell us what the targets are.
I do not want to weary the Committee by going over once again all the arguments about the targets. It is crystal clear that the right target is 182,000. If there is any doubt about that, quite apart from anything that the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations may have said, we can discover the truth of the situation by reading an article in the Soldier, published last week. This is an Army publication, paid for by the Secretary of State and with an editorial board appointed by him. Its leading article presumably produces the official doctrine for the consumption of the men in the ranks.
What that article contains is very different from what has been said in ministerial speeches or in official publications. It says, in justification of the Government's policy:
The Army must have at least 182,000 officers and men to meet all its commitments, although even at this level there will still be some shortages.
So we know that 182,000 men are wanted. During the Second Reading debate I asked the Government what number they hoped to get in December of next year. I was not given an answer. I know, broadly speaking, that it will be about 165,000 Regulars. It may be a few thousand short of that. On the other hand, the Minister's searches in the Fijis and in other parts of the Commonwealth may enable him to reach that figure. He will also be holding back some National Service men, but we do not know how many, and we should be told.
The figure at which the Government are aiming is between 170,000 and 182,000. We should be told what it is now, because if the statement made in the Soldier is right, any figure below 182,000 will mean a shortage which must find reflection in units which are serving at the moment, and must also result in a weakening of the commitments which they are required to carry out.
But this is not the only document which the Minister has published. Another document was sent out last week, marked "Confidential". It was a circular sent to commands and senior


officers. Why it was marked "Confidential" I do not know. It merely consisted of a hand-out from the Minister's speeches. But it contained some proposals which the House of Commons has never been told about. I learnt with great pleasure that the Government propose to initiate immediate talks with employers and trade union leaders, in order to enlist their help in making a success of the new "Ever-readies" scheme.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I did say, when I spoke in the Second Reading debate, that I had already started those talks. The hon. Member has said that I did not tell the House, but I did.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, but I never heard it in the formal way in which it is described in this document. The document also confuses the issue as between the targets of 165,000 and 182,000, as that in the Soldier did not. Without giving a date, it says that the Government hope to get a minimum target of 165,000, rising to 182,000. But the Government know full well that 182,000 is the correct figure.
The document also says that in the last resort the Government might contemplate a return to some form of compulsory service. We have never had an admission from them in those terms before, but it is contained in one document, sent out confidentially, and in another document which has been circulated among the troops.

Mr. John Hall: I have been listening with great interest and perplexity to these quotations. They seem to cover matters which have been mentioned on more than one occasion in the House and mentioned in the terms in which the hon. Member has been stating them.

Mr. Wigg: The figures have been mentioned many times. But if the hon. Member wonders why I follow up this question in some detail I can tell him that it is because Ministers are not always consistent. I can quote statements from the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations repudiating the figure of 182,000. In a Press handout a year ago he asked what all the worry was about, and said that there had never been any question of 182,000.

I make this point because we must get right out of our minds the figure of 165,000.
I believe that the statement contained in the Soldier is right; that the target is 182,000 and that, as the Soldier says, even if that target is attained there will he some shortages. Anything short of 182,000 next December will represent a very grave situation. Therefore, the Government should not be allowed simply to go on until next April and then, by administrative action, do what they want to do in the conditions in which they find themselves. When they have arrived at a firm decision about the date on which they are going to hold men back under Clauses 1 and 2, they should tell the House what the date will be, how many men are involved, how many men will be retained and how they propose to deal with the situation of undoubted weakness which must exist if there is a gap—perhaps a large gap—between the combined figure of National Service men and Regulars which they have succeeded in obtaining and the figure of 182,000. I, for one, am not prepared to give the Government carte blanche. They have not shown themselves worthy of confidence. They have left the decision until the very last moment.
One of the arguments they now produce, I admit it is a powerful one, cuts right to the heart of my own personal dilemma. They say that now we have got into the position in which we are, what alternative is there to the step which the Government are now proposing? Indeed, in the article in Soldier they produce just that argument. They charge hon. Members in this side of the Committee and the newspapers with failing to produce any alternative to the Government proposals. I admit frankly that that is my dilemma.
I am absolutely dead against the provisions of Clause 1, which I regard as a breach of faith with the men who are serving and who by the accident of circumstances will be affected. I consider it a cowardly breach of faith. If there is any substance in the Minister's case that the circumstances have come about only because of the Berlin situation he ought to remember, as the political head of the Army, that he is dealing with soldiers and that whether


they be National Service men or Regulars they should be treated alike.
If the right hon. Gentleman decided to hold National Service men. he should have done what the Labour Government did in 1950, and never mind about the gospel of equal misery. He should have held both. He does not hold the Regulars which he could do under Section 9—does the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) wish to interrupt me?

Mr. John Hall: I was merely expressing surprise because I thought that the Secretary of State had said he intended to take powers to do that.

The Chairman: I have difficulty in understanding how this relates to the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: It relates to the Amendment because I come back to the point that in my view the Secretary of State, when he takes his decision to hold men under Clause 1 ought then to table an affirmative Order and tell the House how many men he proposes to hold and the number of men involved. He should give the House the fullest possible information. Perhaps at a later stage he should give exactly the same information in relation to Clause 2. His failure to so involves the House in giving him a blank cheque which the right hon. Gentleman can then please himself about how he uses.
It is my submission that one of the arguments which he has advanced for the Bill was there is no alternative, and the second argument is it is not tied up with the crisis in which the Government find themselves now. That is not something for which they are responsible, because this Government would never find themselves in such a difficult situation. It arises from the Berlin situation. If the situation gets worse and the right hon. Gentleman can prove that some other crisis is at the root of the trouble all he has to do is to come to the House. He has enormous powers if he cares to use them.
The Labour Government of 1950 acted in a different way. They acted fairly. They made no distinction between Regular soldiers and National Service men. In his heart of hearts the Secretary of State knows that the cause of the trouble in which the Government

now find themselves is basically because of a crisis created by the international situation and that it is his duty to hold Regulars as well as National Service men because his need for trained men is of overwhelming importance. It goes without saying that Regulars are better than National Service men in the sense that they are better trained. The reason he does not do that is it would cause great administrative difficulties. It would strike at the heart of the confidence of the Regular soldier and that would affect the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to raise the Regular recruiting figures.
4.45 p.m.
National Service men are expendable. The Government are allowing their National Service policy to run down. So it is possible to talk to the National Service man, not in terms of duty or privilege, but in terms of equal misery. It is possible to break faith with the National Service man and to cause the greatest uncertainty in his life because for this purpose a National Service man is expendable.
I do not think that this is right. The Government have not shown any reason why they should be given an unlimited amount of trust. I think that they should be called to account for every one of their actions. I make this demand, not because I am passionately interested in the subject—although I am—but on the same basis as any other hon. Member; because this affects every hon. Member who will have in his constituency some people who are doing their National Service or have an obligation to carry out reserve service. They will all be affected by the terms of the Bill.
We have been told over and over again—indeed it is the main argument used against a number of hon. Members opposite who put country before party and a few of us on this side of the Committee who share that view of our duty—that what we want is conscription. If there is no better argument people must fall back on that argument. I repudiate it in my own case. Not only has it been said that we want conscription, but, also, that we want selective service. Let us see where we have got ourselves, and this, again, is why I demand that the House of Commons should keep control


at every stage. Let us see in terms of a time-table. In November, 1959, the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Labour and National Service, announced out of the blue that he was not calling up 60,000 men not because we did not need them, but because the defence budget would not bear it. That related to 60,000 men, and we excluded the miners, agricultural workers, the mercantile marine—

The Chairman: Order. I find it difficult to connect this with the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I appreciate that it is difficult, but I will bring it back in my very next sentence.
We are told that this is a fair Measure and has nothing to do with selective service. The Government have poured scorn on the idea of selective service, but they come forward with a Measure based on no principle, and thought of at the last moment because of pressure from America, to face a manpower situation of their own creation which has nothing to do with Germany at all. They have poured scorn on those who advocated selective service, but they introduce a selective system which is the most unfair, unjust and militarily inefficient which it is possible for a human mind to devise.
In those circumstances, I cannot give the Government carte blanche. They should account at every stage for their actions. I ask the Committee to say that Parliament regretfully considers that under Clause 2 they may have the powers required because they have got themselves into a mess. It is not only the Government but the country and the Army which is in a mess. The Army must be given the men to get it out of the mess, but the number of men required, and when they are wanted, must be the subject of an affirmative Order so that the Government will be brought to account.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I recognise the motive of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in moving the Amendment, and in many ways I am very sympathetic with it, because all of us, whatever may be our views about selective service, continuing conscription in general, or trying to confine ourselves

to a Regular Army only built up by voluntary recruiting, know full well that there will be cases of individual hardship which we would be only too anxious to avoid if we possibly could. At least we are all agreed on that.
I want to give two quotations from my right hon. Friends speech on Second Reading. The first quotation deals with Clause 1 and it should be borne in mind in this discussion:
I have already said that we shall keep back men only for strictly military reasons. So, after April we shall need to hold virtually all National Service men serving in B.A.O.R. In the early release groups after April we should be able to let those serving in other theatres go at their normal times. Later in the year, when there are fewer National Service men available, we shall probably have to keep back the majority of men wherever they are serving and transfer them to B.A.O.R.
All of us agree that the situation in Berlin is all too susceptible of becoming electric at any moment. I ask the Committee to consider the wisdom of accepting the Amendment. However much we may be sympathetic with the individual cases of hardship involved, do we believe that it would be wise to compel the Secretary of State for War to come to the House of Commons and state exactly how many men he intends to retain, when the mere act of doing so may very well add to the tension which the men's retention is designed to reduce? This is the vital factor, certainly on Clause 1.
The second quotation concerns Clause 2:
While it is possible, in certain circumstances, that we might have to use the power under this Clause"—
that is, Clause 2—
to call certain National Service men back next year, it seems that that situation, if it were to arise, would probably mean that we would have to declare a state of emergency and call out reserves generally. I do not therefore think it likely that we should need to use the powers under Clause 2 until 1963. By that time there will be rather more than 100,000 part-time National Service men eligible for recall, but in the sort of circumstances we envisage we should only need to call on a fraction of this total."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol 650, c. 47, 49 and 50.]
None of us can foresee what is likely to be the context in which we would have to operate Clause 2. It may be Berlin. It may be in a quite different part of the world. It may be in Persia,


for example. Perhaps that is not so unlikely as some people may think today. Wherever it is, I suggest that the Committee must be very careful before asking the Government to accept a machinery for implementing either of these Clauses which, by its very nature, would tend to increase the tension rather than reduce it.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I could understand the hon. Gentleman's point if he had tabled an Amendment designed to make action under these two Clauses; subject to the Official Secrets Act. However, if people are being called up, either under Clause 1 or under Clause 2, the newspapers will know about it. Questions in the House of Commons will be admissible. It cannot be secret. Rather than have the matter come out in that way, would it not be much better for the Minister to come forward with an order and give the reasons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggests.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. There is something to be said for making such action subject to the Official Secrets Act, but for the very reason which the hon. Member for Dudley has advanced, namely, that there definitely will be cases of individual hardship, which we would all like to avoid, we ought not to do that.
If we go the whole way with the hon. Member for Dudley, we shall create a machinery which will at once ensure that it hits the headlines, whereas under the machinery proposed by my right hon. Friend we can at least ensure that every individual case is dealt with as effectively as possible on its merits. Many of them—indeed, the vast majority of them—will be dealt with quite quietly without any public fuss. Each case will vary. Cases of hardship are bound to vary considerably depending on whether the man is married or single, etc.
I hope that my action in supporting the Clause as it stands and not being prepared to support the Amendment will not lead anyone to think that I do not realise that there will be many cases of personal hardship. I do realise that. However, if the purpose for which we are asking these men to serve is to help the country to play its part in keeping

the peace, it would not be very wise in retaining these men to use machinery which is bound to increase the tension which they are trying to reduce.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I always listen to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) with respect, because he always speaks with courage and sincerity. It is not often that I find myself so much in disagreement with him as I do today, because the reasons which he has just given are reasons to which I find myself diametrically opposed. The important thing about the Amendment is that it raises the whole question of the increasing habit of passing skeleton Bills and giving Ministers wide powers—powers which Parliaments of years ago would never have tolerated—to be exercised by one Minister without consultation, but without giving any details as to how the powers are to be exercised.
Time after time in the past few years Ministers have come to the House with a permissive Bill and vague promises that they will exercise it with moderation, discretion and consideration. Indeed, I have no doubt that they intended to keep their promises. But all power corrupts. Under the pressure of cricumstances a Minister is very easily convinced that on the whole the situation is not the same as it was when he made his first speech or when he gave the undertakings or assurances. A careful re-reading of his speech will nearly always disclose to him that, after all, the assurances did not mean very much and that they were qualified very considerably.
I have always had very friendly relations with the present Secretary of State for War. He has always considered my individual cases with courtesy, and, I think, with generosity in the circumstances. He gave an almost blank assurance which supported the Clause. He said, "At present I do not think that it will be necessary at all to call up anyone whose term of service is due to expire on or before 1st April of next year". Then, being a Minister and realising that Tory Ministers who make definite statements on anything nearly always finish up as involuntary occupants of another place, he made a qualification which deprives the Clause of its meaning. He said, "Provided that the


international situation does not get worse".
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, who I am sure spoke with sincerity, thinks that the international situation is worse. He says that the situation in Berlin is one which might become serious at any moment. I suppose it is. It has always been such a situation since it was first established. I am horribly afraid it always will be until some alteration is made.
I ought to declare my interest, I suppose. I call myself a pacifist, without being quite sure what the term means in modern days, because I never feel the urge to have a row with the police in Trafalgar Square on their day off or anything like that. I am a sort of theoretical pacifist who tries to face some of the realistic implications of the existing situation and who does not feel that the fact that he is a pacifist absolves him from the need to look after those of his constituents who have military obligations. Indeed, I also combine with my pacifism a vague theory, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, that on the whole military service is a jolly good thing for youngsters, and that, a little bit of collective service—I would rather have it collective service for peace; and one day we may have a peace army doing service in Africa—would do nobody any harm. I cannot think of a better training. Most of us found a good deal of comradeship in the Army, a sense of sacrifice and so on.
5.0 p.m.
On the other hand, I think the hon. Member for Dudley put his case a little high. All of us watched with admiration the courage and self-sacrifice of the troops in the First World War, but there was another aspect to it. A famous poet wrote:
Although we obey the moral law,
and although we know our quarrel just;
Were I permitted to withdraw,
You would not see my—back—for dust.
It is a view that could be held, if not expressed. I do not know what the position is at the moment, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley quite fairly did not say it is a tough job, but a happy job. Let us say, then, that they are to share the collective happiness of six months' further service.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend gets mixed up. I did not talk about happiness; I talked about duty.

Mr. Hale: Well, a privilege. It is the privilege of doing one's duty. I think this is what my hon. Friend said, and I listened carefully to him. If it is a privilege, why not start that way and say that there is comradeship in the Army? There was a definite desire, I know, on the local gun sites for every man to pull his own weight, and when I was a lance bombardier I found that I was getting my shoes cleaned in the morning because—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather far away from the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I was talking of my feet. I would not have thought, Sir Norman, that they were as far away from the subject as all that. The point I was going to put—and I will put the point first and the argument second—is that we may find ourselves in a crisis in which the obvious first thing to do is to call for volunteers and say, "Look here, we have got to 'nobble' some of you blokes, and some of you like it and some of you don't. Some have great obligations and some have not. Some are single men with not a care in the world, but with a lass down the street, and others have wives in Oldham who are expecting babies, very nervous and alone. There is the situation, and here is a great privilege which at the same time confers on some people a great deal of hardship."
If we can get those who do not have to face hardship to volunteer, we shall have got at the root of our problem and met the situation in a way which I should have thought would have been the first appeal that would be made. If it is regarded so much of a privilege, one would have expected a great response, but it is only fair that I should add that my correspondence from the troops in Germany has not contained a letter from any one who desires to volunteer. On the other hand, it has contained some extremely moving and genuinely serious letters, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading, very great hardship will be imposed on some.
There is the second technical difficulty about it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have raised cases of personal hardship, and sometimes the right hon. Gentleman has been moved to take steps to remedy it. In one or two cases which I have put to him I think he has behaved with great generosity and consideration, and it is only right that that should be acknowledged. There are other cases in which it is said, "Well, a man has served 12 months already and has not long to go now. We cannot have a compassionate posting" when he is leaving in a certain time and all these things raised again if he has to serve for an extended period of six months.
Is not this Amendment the first measure of protection, for the Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall come to the House with a Statutory Instrument and say, "You gave me these powers conditionally and a situation has now arisen when I say to the House that the recruiting figures which looked so promising a few weeks ago have not been maintained," or "the international situation is not quite so promising," or "other obligations have come about." At the moment, the Committee is being asked to accord an open cheque to the Secretary of State, with no figures filled in, to be presented when he likes and without any further reference to the House.
I suggest that there is nothing in the situation which makes that necessary. This is too serious a matter for me to make points which are not serious, but the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely took a much more serious view of the Berlin situation than did the Prime Minister in his famous remark—which I do not criticise, because it gave a good deal of reassurance to the public generally—made on the 17th green that this was not a matter which was ever going to be a casus belli or words to that effect. The Secretary of State said that if he came to the House with a Statutory Instrument, that might produce a headline, but that is not an argument for giving him this Bill at all. In a situation which is altering rapidly, this is the sort of measure which in an emergency could be passed very rapidly indeed. In an emergency, a Bill could be passed much more quickly than a Statutory Instrument,

because the right hon. Gentleman has to have a Bill to enable a Statutory Instrument to be passed in less than 28 days. During the war, we all know that in an emergency Bills have been passed through both Houses very rapidly, in a matter of hours, when a real emergency occurred.
I suggest that my hon. Friend's Amendment is a reasonable precaution and permits the House to keep control of the matter, while giving some assurance to those who are desperately worried and want some information about their situation. I therefore hope that the Committee will consider that it is an Amendment that could be carried.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I think that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who moved the Amendment, genuinely considers that he was doing the country a great service by putting it down, but I suggest also that for the Minister to have to come to the House every time he wants another hundred or a thousand men will be causing a great deal more distress by making it public every time.
The hon. Member for Dudley put particular stress on the number of men required in the Army. I submit that what we need is some degree of flexibility so that the Minister himself can regulate the exact numbers required at any one time. It may well be that a situation could arise either in Berlin or another country in which forces are required, and this method gives the flexibility which I think is generally required. The second Amendment I am sure was put down in the interests of the Army, but, quite honestly, I cannot possibly see who will be the arbitrator as to what men are called up. The Amendment says—
Provided there is no person of similar qualifications available "—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is not talking about my same Amendment. If the lion. Gentleman will read the two Amendments, he will find that my Amendment states:
(3) The provisions of this section shall come into force on a date specified by the Secretary of State in an order made by him, and such order shall be made by statutory instrument a draft of which has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.


That is the Amendment which deals with Clause 1, and I have another Amendment which deals with Clause 2.

Dr. Glyn: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member. My point was that my right hon. Friend would have to bring it before the House every time.

Mr. Wigg: It would not be necessary to bring it before the House every time. As drafted, when the Bill becomes an Act, Clause 1 will not become operative until the Minister does something about it, or comes to the House to say that it is going to become operative and to get the approval of the House.

Dr. Glyn: That is the point. By coming to the House to make that announcement he will be renewing alarm. If we pass the Bill as it is the Minister will have power to do this without coming to the House.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) suggesting that if he decides to operate under Clause 1 the Secretary of State will do so in the form of a private letter to the troops concerned without telling hon. Members about it?

Dr. Glyn: I take the point made by the hon. Member, and I think there is some substance in it, but in fact this bears on the number of men who are to be called up. It may be that a certain amount of publicity would be given to it. I take the point, but I should say that it would be far more likely to cause worry and alarm if each time it were first to come before the House.

Mr. John Morris: Would the hon. Member prefer the publicity to be in the newspapers to having a debate on matters of this nature in the House?

Dr. Glyn: I think the hon. Member is overstressing the importance of the publicity which will arise when private notices go to various individuals.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Member imagine that when these notices go out some hon. Member is not going to put a Question on the Order Paper asking how many are being called up? All the difference to be made here is as to whether this information, which in any case will have to be given, shall be given in a form

which is debatable or a form I should have thought it desirable to have it published in a form in which the House can discuss it.

Dr. Glyn: I disagree. I think it far better if we are calling up men for a particular emergency that it should not be debatable.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the Army Reserve Bill is designed to impress our friends? It certainly will not impress our enemies. Although I do not support the Amendment, I think this proposal would present another opportunity of impressing our friends.

Dr. Glyn: I am afraid I do not share the view of my hon. Friend. The question is the degree of publicity. It is true that there may be publicity in the circulation of notices, but I do not think it would be as great as the publicity and alarm caused by an Order made in this House.
I wish to make another point to my right hon. Friend. On Second Reading he promised that before anyone was called up he would seriously look at the possibility of a review of the exact number of troops required with a view to possibly greater mobility and a reduction of numbers. I am sure that he will carry that out, but I ask him one other thing. Before there is any call-up under this provision, will he look into the question of simplicity of accounting, which could save Army manpower? Also, is it correct that when there are call-ups they are made before any men in the Emergency Reserve or the Territorial Army Reserve are called up? I should like that point to be made quite clear.

5.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I wish to revert for a moment to something which was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He may be a pacifist but, apart from his very rare flights of fancy, he is certainly a realist. He said that Parliaments of years ago would not tolerate what we are now doing. Whether they would or would not, the fact is that times have changed very considerably.
I do not say that the emergencies which we face today are any less or any greater than those faced leading up to


the Napoleonic Wars, but things move so swiftly today that plans for emergency measures of this sort of nature must be well laid beforehand. That is one of the things this Bill attempts to do. It is a gap-bridging Measure and we hope that it will not be permanent. That brings me to the point that if it were to be a permanency and if this were to be an active Measure on the Statute Book for many years or even centuries to come, I would say that undoubtedly there is force in the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). That, however, is not the case.
The hon. Member has stated that the object of the proposed new subsection is, first, to make the Secretary of State come to the House to give two things—the date of the requirement and the number of men to be required. The subsection as drafted does not do that. It would provide the date, but it would not provide any number of men. I do not say that this will happen, but it could happen that the Secretary of State could come to the House one night in order to support the Statutory Instrument and say to hon. Members, "I am sorry, but it is not in the public interest for me to divulge the number of men involved." Naturally, all of us on both sides of the Committee would have to accept that. The subsection does not do what it purports to do.
The hon. Member for Dudley is an old soldier. He and his friends on both sides of the House talk much about selective service. Surely he must realise that what the Army requires under this Measure is not the raw material of National Service men which would be provided by a form of selective service which he advocates, but a number of trained men to bridge a gap for a certain duration of time. If we did what he keeps suggesting we should do, the Army would be overburdened with raw recruits which the Army does not want and cannot do with at this time. What we want to do here is to extend the service for as short a period as possible of certain trained men. That is what the Bill is trying to do. I cannot see why hon. Members on either side of the House cannot understand that. They keep arguing about selective service, but that would get us absolutely nowhere in meeting the present shortage.

Mr. Paget: Is not this selective service?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. and learned Member asks if this is not selective service. I suppose it can be called selective service, but selective service of a very specialised type, not what he and his hon. Friends mean when they talk about selective service. What he and his Friends have frequently advocated in this House is either selective service linked to some sort of ballot, or selective service linked to such dire medical, physical and other standards that all but the very top men will be kept out. Is that not true?

Mr. Paget: No, it is exactly untrue. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that this Bill is not what I mean by selective service, I say it is precisely selective service. When he says that I have advocated another form of selective service, I tell him that I have done nothing of the sort.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. and learned Member will no doubt stick to his argument. Nevertheless, he knows that what has been intended when selective service has been argued for in this House from time to time has been the selection of raw, untried young men, untrained and unfitted to fulfil their immediate purpose in our Armed Forces. He knows that as well as I do, and it is no good arguing about the precise meaning of this word or that. We know what we both mean; that is the point.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Opposition is advocating selective service?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I can not speak for the Opposition. In any case, there are so many shades of opposition in this House that it is difficult to know what anyone wants. The fact remains that the Army today requires—

Mr. Morris: Mr. Morris rose—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I will give the hon. Gentleman a full answer—not that form of selective service which will provide raw, untried, untrained men, but the extension of service of trained men to bridge a gap of short duration. That is why I cannot possibly support the Amendment.

Mr. Victor Yates: I find it rather difficult to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Commander Maydon). I thought, from his remarks earlier in his speech, that he thought it to be absolutely necessary for plans to be laid well in advance. If so, I cannot understand his objection to the Minister being able to come to the House, laying an Order and explaining to hon. Members what he proposes to do.
I support the Amendment because it seeks to amend a Clause which, if un-amended, will represent a breach of faith; it will mean that large numbers of young men who were called up on the understanding that they were to serve for a certain period will find that that period has been extended. That sort of action is extremely unfair to these men. If one is considering any form of selective service, this kind of selection is certainly the worst possible—even worse than wholesale conscription.
I have carefully studied the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I cannot see what possible objection can be raised to the Minister laying an Order before the House. Naturally, I do not know about the figures. Figures do not worry me unduly, and while the figures might not be supplied there is no reason why, should the Minister find it necessary to give notice that he intends to call up a number of men, he should not be obliged to come to the House and say so.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of speeches—some of them in the country—and I gathered from what he said—and if I am wrong perhaps he will correct me—that he may not, in fact, put the provisions of the Bill into operation. I got the impression that he was merely seeking a power and that he hoped that the situation would not necessitate him putting those powers into action. I hope I am right.

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my Second Reading speech he will see that his remarks are correct with regard to Clause 2. But on Clause 1 I have made it clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has quoted my words, that if the situation does not get

better I shall have to take power under Clause 1 to retain people in B.A.O.R. after 1st April next year.

Mr. Yates: That bears out my remarks. I have hoped that while this was a power the Minister wanted, he would not find it necessary to use it. But the longer we go on the more it seems to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman is going to do something, exactly what I do not know. I therefore believe that the hon. Member for Dudley was right to ask for some specific information before the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any action.
I therefore support the Amendment, which clearly says that the Minister should lay an Order before he takes any action. This is only fair to the men serving the periods for which they were originally called up, for not to accept the Amendment would be grossly unfair to them. I do not support the Bill in its present form, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is regarded as a realist—

Mr. Hale: That has never been said of me before, and I doubt if it will be said again.

Mr. Yates: —I have never heard it said that any one regarded as a pacifist could also be regarded as a realist. I always understand that a person in this latter category always has his head in the clouds. Is my hon. Friend not a realist when he referred to the past? After all, it has been part of the British way of life that compulsion in time of peace should never be. The Bill as at present drafted constitutes a compulsion, and I object to it. It is a compulsion of the worst kind and for that reason the Minister should be prepared to say that, if he thinks the situation demands him bringing his powers into operation, he should also be prepared to come to the House and say so.
Let us remember that we are dealing with men's lives. It is not as though the Government must wait for a Bill to pass through its varied stages. The Minister need only lay an Order in this instance and my hon. Friends support the Amendment merely to ensure that should these powers be taken hon. Members will have an opportunity to consider them.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I have listened with interest to the discussion so far, especially to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I wonder if it will help the hon. Gentleman if I refer to some writings of a previous hon. Member. I quote a few sentences from "The Decline and Fall", which would seem particularly relevant to our discussion.
… but the timid and luxurious inhabitants of a … empire must be allured into the service by the hopes of profit, or compelled by the dread of punishment. The resources of the Roman treasury were exhausted by the increase of pay, by the repetition of donatives, and by the invention of new emoluments and indulgences, which, in the opinion of the provincial youth, might compensate the hardships and dangers of a military life.
It is probably significant that at the present time, with the welfare state, we have to have a compulsory service of some form because there has been a complete failure to get the requested number of recruits.
I support the Amendment because this House has always been very jealous of the rights of raising the Armed Forces. It is essential that such control as is practicable can be forced on any Government and that some form of control should be exercised in the raising of forces both in the number and in their compensation.
5.30 p.m.
To suggest that there will be a panic when it is actually announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the troops are to be called up is ridiculous. If he is not capable at this stage of forecasting the number of men he will want to raise under the Bill, then the time has come for him to find somebody who can do the arithmetic for him. This is not a Bill just to deal with the Berlin crisis. I support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said that we shall have to live with this sort of thing for a generation. It is quite simple to forecast what is required in the Armed Forces. My right hon. Friend has only to read the magazines published by his own Department, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) did. Here is the sentence next following the quotation which the hon. Gentleman made:
Yet, at present, it seems unlikely that by the end of 1962, when National Service is due to end, the Army will have more than 165,000

—and this at a time when more and more men are needed to achieve a balanced force capable of dealing with any emergency.
If my right hon. Friend were to deal with that figure and the figure in the sentence which the hon. Member for Dudley read, he would find roughly what his deficiency was. Also, he will find from some of the figures which are published by his Department that he can reach certain conclusions. He will find more from some of the figures which are not published. I appeal to him now to consider whether it might be possible for some of the recruiting figures which he could lay under the order we are considering or other orders to have more detail in them so that those of us who follow what he is doing may have better information.
The present information about monthly recruiting figures issued by the Department is not very informative. One cannot follow the drops in the number of National Service men, the number of National Service men who have re-engaged, the number of Regulars who have re-engaged, and a variety of other matters which I cannot believe would be affected by considerations of security. I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend would consider increasing the information which is made available in the documents.
Returning to the specific point of the Amendment, it should be quite easy, as I have said, to forecast what troops will need to be retained during the next 12 months. If there is any difficulty, the hon. Member for Dudley will, I am sure, offer his assistance in doing the necessary calculations. With those figures, it should be quite possible to lay an order and keep the House informed from time to time. Then we should know where we stood. Parliament would have a chance of supervising the number of people in the Armed Forces and when they were likely to be called up. The traditional watch over the Armed Services would be maintained.
This is not a Bill to deal with the Berlin situation. It is a Bill to bridge a gap created because, unfortunately—I say "unfortunately" with all the emphasis I can muster—voluntary recruiting has not succeeded, nor will it succeed, in providing adequate forces to deal with the commitments which the country has.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my hon. Friend apply his mind to this question, which I believe to be closely relevant? I entirely go with him on the question of what forces need to be retained. Now, however, under the terms of the Bill, it is quite clear that a number of people who might ordinarily leave the Service may change their minds. If they are to receive different emoluments and different rates of pay, they may consider that. Therefore, the figures which would normally be available to the War Office as to the number which would need to be retained may be substantially different when the men now have to apply their minds to that factor. Does not my hon. Friend think that that may be a factor of importance in the question whether the Minister brings these provisions under the Clause into effect or not?

Mr. Harrison: I am very interested in that intervention. I am not aware of any variations in the current Regular pay scales which might attract the additional volunteers which would be necessary. If my hon. Friend is referring to the possibility in a later Amendment under which a man who is called up like this would be able to switch to the "Ever-readies" and get the bonus, there might be some relevance in his point. I fail to see, however, how the particular point he raises could affect the numbers.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend agree that a man might be prepared to have his pay raised to Regular rates for the last six months who would not in the first instance have been prepared to volunteer for a Regular engagement?

Mr. Harrison: If I have it right, under the Bill a person who is retained does anyhow receive the equivalent of Regular pay; so there is nothing whatever for him to gain by volunteering.

Mr. Profumo: I should not like to lose any Regular recruits there might be in this, but, of course, there is still open, until next April, the offer for any National Service man who wishes to take a short-term engagement and get a bounty in so doing.

Mr. Harrison: I take the point which my right hon. Friend makes. I had

overlooked the bounty which is, in part, relevant to the earlier intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).

Mr. John Hall: Does my hon. Friend believe that, as a result of what is now proposed, there will, presumably, during the six months period when reservists may be withheld, be no National Servicemen to qualify for a bounty by volunteering for Regular service and that we might in those circumstances have a complete drying up of all Regular recruits from that source?

Mr. Harrison: That is a point which one might have to consider, that there would not be re-engagement by National Service men. It is very difficult—this comes back to the earlier point—to have any appreciation of how successful my right hon. Friend's campaign with bounties has been in persuading National Service men to become Regulars. Some of us have had intimations from unofficial sources about how successful it may have been. I think I can safely say that it is not likely to cause much embarrassment to the Treasury in the payment of bounties up to date.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Can the hon. Gentleman say, since he is making such a point of this, whether it is a fact that the product in terms of recruits from the bounties has been something in double figures? Does he think that that is very relevant to the manpower situation in the Army?

Mr. Harrison: I did imply that I did not think that the extra expenditure would seriously embarrass the Treasury. Unfortunately the figures are not available to us at the present time.
The point of the Amendment is that we should maintain the traditional control over the Army in peace-time, and I think that my right hon. Friend ought to consider very carefully whether it is not a practical thing to do. Provided that his forecasting is moderately accurate, it will not cause him any undue embarrassment. The idea that it would cause a large-scale panic throughout the country is, I think, greatly exaggerated, because, in any case, every local paper will carry details about local people being called up. It is not possible to issue these things under the Official


Secrets Act. If a man is retained, his mother will talk and his wife will talk.

Mr. Wigg: The Secretary of State for War dealt with this point on 27th November. He said:
In due course each man will receive a separate communication telling him whether or not he will have to soldier on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 48.]
I should have thought that anyone who knows anything about the Army would say that soldiers retained or recalled will not keep quiet about it.

Mr. Harrison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look very carefully at this Amendment. I do not say that it will not cause him a little inconvenience, but I am sure that he is a man who believes in Parliament, and, consequently, believes in keening Parliament fully informed about things which Parliament can be told without causing a breach of security.

Dr. Alan Thompson: I support the Amendment because it is based on a simple fact, namely, that matters of significance and importance should be subject to Parliamentary approval. I think that nothing is of greater significance or greater importance than the retention of a young man in the Army, involving the deprivation of his normal civic rights, the inconvenience to which he and his family are put, the interruption of his studies, and matters of that kind. All that we ask in this Amendment is that matters of quite fundamental importance in the lives of the citizens of our country should come before Parliament to be discussed and approved by Parliament.
The provisions of the Bill are significant on three grounds: first, domestically, secondly, to our military allies, and, thirdly, to our military enemies. On the first of those grounds, this last weekend I interviewed a young man in my constituency. He may not fall within the provisions of the Bill, but he is already sufficiently alarmed to write to me and to ask to see me because of his domestic situation—his wife's illness, and all kinds of reasons.
It would be unfortunate if debates of this kind revolved around statistics, although I agree that statistics are

important. It would be unfortunate if they revolved around the convenience or inconvenience of the planners and the generals or of ourselves in calling up or discharging men. Debates of this kind must, to a certain extent, revolve around the personal problems of our constituents and the inconvenience to which they are subjected. We have sufficient evidence in our postbags to know that, of all the Bills before this Parliament, this very closely concerns many people. On the ground of its domestic significance and on the ground of its significance to young men in our constituencies, Parliament should have the right to discuss and approve matters, as laid down in the Amendment.
My second point is important. I do not see how the Minister loses by periodic discussion of decisions to strengthen our Army. This heartens our allies. They know that we are doing something important and radical. On this score, I do not see the need to avoid discussion or approval by Parliament. Our military enemies, whoever they may be, at whatever time we are discussing, should also be suitably impressed by the fact that Parliament is discussing a Measure of this kind.
I cannot accept the arguments of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), whose views on this subject I respect—he knows what he is talking about—but I simply cannot accept his proposition that there are questions of secrecy involved. If the situation has reached the point at which the Minister has to call up more men, clearly that derives from international happenings. Presumably there is no secrecy about international happenings, which appear in all the newspapers. In any case, as has been said, individual call-up papers, however individual, do not take very long to reach wider circulation in the newspapers.
I therefore consider that on all these grounds—the importance of the Bill to our citizens and to our allies and its significance to our enemies—I can see no reason for resisting the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) referred to the Bill's provisions in what I thought was a rather casual way. He said that this was just a gap to be bridged. But there are always gaps to be bridged, particularly in the matters of defence and international


policy. We shall not be surprised when they occur this year, next year, and the year after. We should not get into the habit of a casual stopping of gaps by provisions which intimately affect the lives of our citizens. We are here concerned with matters sufficiently important to be subjected to the debate and approval of this Committee. I hope that the Minister will think again and will accept the Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: During our discussions on this subject, I have often found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but I do not propose today to support his Amendment. My reason is not that I like the Bill or the Clause as it stands. It is that I consider that the Bill as such is not capable of Amendment, and I should be very sorry to do anything which implied that I thought that it was or that this Committee should do anything with it except reject it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would be entitled to ask why, after 4½ years of calling for some measure of selective service, I then object to a Measure of selective service, however garbled, when he introduces it. I will tell him. The Government fixed the figure of 165,000 men in 1957, when they decided to do away with conscription. We were told at that time that 165,000 was the right figure. We have been told ever since that 165,000 was the figure that we should get, that 165,000 men would be enough, and that anyone who said anything else was plain unpatriotic.
What has happened? We now stand within 12 months or so of the time when, without the provisions of the Bill, the last National Service men will leave the Army. What are the prospects? I have never gone in for crystal gazing to the same extent as the hon. Member for Dudley, but it seems to me that the Government will get very nearly 165,000 men—not very many short of it. After all that has been said, one might have expected a certain amount of self-congratulation on the part of the Government. We are told that recruiting is going well; and so it is. It seems to

be going better than ever. In spite of that, we do not get self-congratulation.
What de we get? We get this miserable Measure. What it amounts to is that the Government have at last been forced by pressure of events, and I suspect, by pressure from their allies to admit—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too far outside the scope of the Amendment.

Sir F. Maclean: I am just coming back to the Amendment, Sir William.
As I say, it seems to me that this is a miserable Measure and that no Clause in it has anything to commend it. In the first place, it is manifestly unfair, and I am sure that in our discussions a great deal more will be said about that. I thought that the hon. Member for Dudley made an interesting point when he said that Clause 1, which we are discussing—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are not discussing Clause 1. We are discussing the first Amendment to Clause 1 and another Amendment.

Sir F. Maclean: Excuse me, Sir William. I should have referred to the Clause on which we are discussing the hon. Member's Amendment.
The Clause does not provide for the retention of Regulars. That is one aspect of its unfairness. Apart from being unfair, it is also wasteful and ineffective. What I am most reproachful about is the fact that it is a temporary stopgap Measure Under the Clause, men are to be retained in the forces for a further six months. The Clause has validity only for another 12 months, because after that time there will not be any conscripts available to retain.
One will be told that under Clause 2. it is possible to retain—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will pay attention to the Ruling that we are discussing the first Amendment to Clause 1. We are not discussing Clause 2.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Of course, I bow to your Ruling, Sir William, but your predecessor in


the Chair indicated that it would be in order to discuss Clause 2 in so far as it was affected by the Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which is virtually a similar Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. In so far as the first Amendment to Clause 1 is concerned, it is true that the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers is being discussed. I thought, however, that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) was going too far. I remain of that opinion and I hope that he will endeavour to keep closer to the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I asked the Ruling of the Chair on this point, Sir William. I thought that I should certainly get into trouble, but the Chairman was kind enough to say that I could discuss a rather wider point than you are now ruling. It must be an embarrassment to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), all the preceding speeches having gone rather wide, suddenly to find himself put in a cage.

Sir F. Maclean: My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Dudley have rather taken the words out of my mouth. I intended, Sir William, to refer to the Ruling of your predecessors in the Chair, who have given wide scope for discussion and said that we could touch on any points that were relevant to any of the three Amendments which are being discussed together. It would inhibit me if I were not able to tread on the same ground as those who have spoken before me.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order. Can you kindly explain. Sir William, how the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) can discuss periods of time in the Armed Forces on Clause 2 by reference to the Amendment in page 2, line 36, which is specifically related to Statutory Instruments? I should like this to be made clear, because it does not seem to me to be possible to discuss the implications of the retention of men in the Forces under Clause 2 in the context in which you have just given your Ruling, Sir William.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think I am required to make the hon. Member's speech for him. He will continue with his speech and I hope that he will endeavour to keep within the bounds of order.

Sir F. Maclean: I think that I shall be in order in taking up a point which has certainly occurred in the speeches of almost every hon. Member who has spoken before me. I refer to the temporary nature of this whole Measure. That is an all-embracing characteristic and I emphasise, as has been emphasised by other hon. Members, on both sides, that it may be a temporary Measure, but that the crisis which it is designed to meet is not temporary in character and is likely to continue in one form or another for the rest of our lives.
Therefore, what we need—and this is a subject which is dealt with in every line of the Bill—is men on the ground to prevent a worsening of the present crisis and the crisis which will face us, no doubt, in five or ten years' time, when the Bill will have ceased to have any validity unless, as one hopes, it is replaced by something more realistic.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has told us that he is not a realist. In this respect, I am a realist. The only thing which I see about this whole Measure to recommend it is the fact that it has been described as a stopgap. I hope that it may act as a stopgap whilst the Government think again and finally bring in a measure of true selective service which will give them the men we need. Meanwhile, until they do that, I cannot support them in this present Measure.

Mr. Morris: I could not but agree with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) in saying that this is a miserable and, indeed, an unjust Bill. I say so as one who has spent two years undergoing this form of National Service. To have what I regard is nothing less than selective service in its worst possible form by catching a few men who happen to be in a certain spot at a particular time and holding them, or, as to others, calling them back simply because they happen to be in a classification covered by Clause 2, is something with which I cannot agree.
This series of Amendments seeks to give to Parliament the chance to look at


the matter again. Parliament should be very jealous of granting to the Secretary of State for War what is undoubtedly a blank cheque. Where the liberty of individuals is affected, we should not discuss the Clause and the Amendment in terms of round figures of 165,000 or 182,000, but we should consider the matter every time from the viewpoint of the young man who will be retained in the Armed Forces.
Having regard to the control that Parliament has exercised over the Armed Forces and having regard to the feelings and views of each and every one of the individuals who will be retained, the Amendment should be accepted and Parliament should have the opportunity, when the time comes, of considering the needs of the Secretary of State and we should be able to debate them.
All sorts of fears have been expressed in the debate. Before hon. Members speak further, it would be advisable for some of them to look at the terms of the Amendment. It merely states that the Secretary of State should lay an Order before Parliament. It does not specify what the Order shall contain. That is an important consideration and should quell some of the fears of hon. Members who have spoken against the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) stated that if there were discussion of an Order of that nature, when introduced into Parliament, it would cause great public alarm throughout the country and, indeed, throughout the world. The hon. Member seemed, however, to be shutting his eyes to the obvious fact of what will happen when the Secretary of State has to issue the individual notices, to which he referred on Second Reading, to the men who will have to serve again. The right hon. Gentleman said that:
In due course each man will receive a separate communication telling him whether or not he will have to soldier on. I intend to give as much advance notice as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c 48.]

Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend meant that he would give as much advance notice as possible to the individual man and not in a widespread Press statement or in debate in the House of Commons.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Morris: Then he is being patently unreasonable and shutting his eyes to the obvious facts. If the notice is sent to each man with the obvious intention of giving him individual notice, which is desirable under the terms of the Act, then obviously that man will not keep it to himself. There will be hundreds of Questions in the House from every hon. Member whose postbag will be filled as a result. The letter will not be marked "Private and Confidential". It will not be put away on the mantelpiece. The man will tell his friends. Every paper in the land will know about it and it will become a main point of argument and of news throughout the country and throughout the world. Acknowledging that undoubtedly publicity will result from the issue of the notice, it would be far better to have that publicity given in the House of Commons where these matters should be debated. The House should be the forum for these views.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Member suggest that every time an individual has to be called up, Parliament must be informed of it?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Member reads the Bill he will find that that is not the intention of the Secretary of State. He hopes to call these men from a large class of people after 1st April. He recognised that in his speech on Second Reading. It is because of the obvious need that will arise after next April. I should have thought that it would have been far preferable to have this issue, which will undoubtedly concern every hon. Member, discussed and properly ventilated in this Chamber. This is the place to do it and nowhere else.
I cannot see how this Order of itself if it were accepted and provision for it were inserted in the Bill would create any greater amount of alarm and panic than the issue of notices without the Order. Undoubtedly there will be panic and alarm when the notices are issued, and I cannot see that ordinary Parliamentary procedure will add to that alarm. The hon. Member's argument is an argument for taking every discussion of defence away from the Floor of the House of Commons.
In discussing the Amendment I stand opposed to National Service. I could not understand the statement made by the


hon. Member for Clapham when he said categorically that the Opposition have put forward the view that we should have selective National Service. I have never known that put forward as the policy of the party at any time. I detest National Service and selective service, but if we are to have this form of service the Secretary of State should appear at the Dispatch Box and we should have the matter properly debated.
The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that he could put at least half of these men out of their suspense and uncertainty. Those due to be released before 1st April would not be needed. But this does not mitigate; it aggravates matters. It makes selective service even worse. It selects even among those selected. Those selected in the first place will be those who happen to be in the Army now when the Secretary of State needs them.

Mr. Profumo: Does the hon. Member wish to argue that if I knew when I came to the House that I could avoid calling up a number of these people it was not right to inform the House so that these young men would know what their future would be?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the young men released and those who are assured that they are not needed will be happy to have had that assurance, but if out of the class of young men who happen to be in the Army the Government say to some, "We shall not need you," that does not mitigate the case for having selective service. It aggravates the case for others. I am sure that the young men who come out before 1st April will be grateful to the Minister for giving them the assurance when he did, but it aggravates matters for the other young men who are still there after 1st April because they happen to be in a class of people who have at the moment National Service obligations.

Mr. Wigg: Before my hon. Friend joins in thanking the Secretary of State, perhaps he ought to bear in mind that these 25,000 young men who will get away with it because they are serving now are almost certain to get caught under Clause 2. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, "Thank you very much. We will not get you here but we will wait until you have got

married and settled down to civilian life and we will get you then".

Mr. Morris: I hope that the Minister will give a further assurance before we finish the discussion that the young men who will not be needed before 1st April will not be needed under Clause 2 either. If the Minister is seeking to set himself up as a man who can assure people. I am sure that these young men will be grateful for a further assurance that they will not be needed under Clause 2. I was grateful to him for his first assurance. I should be even more grateful if he gives this second assurance which will relieve these young men of uncertainty.

Mr. Profumo: Should not the hon. Member declare an interest in the Clause as applying to himself?

Mr. Morris: If I read Clause 2 properly, I do not need to declare an interest. I believe that it applies to people who are within 3½ years of their completion of National Service. I have not to declare an interest on that score, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like to give me an assurance had I that interest, an assurance which I could pass on to those who have, I should be grateful. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give it.

Mr. John Hall: If the Secretary of State gives the assurance which the hon. Member seeks, would not it create a great deal more uncertainty among the rest of the reserves?

Mr. Morris: Yes, and I would point out that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire has said that he would not support an Amendment to the Bill because basically the Bill was not capable of amendment. Once we have some form of selective service then, however the Bill is breached, it is selective service within selective service and that, instead of mitigating matters, makes them much worse.
The Clause is absolutely unjust, but if the Amendment were accepted it would provide the House of Commons with an opportunity of discussing once again the needs of the Secretary of State. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will recruit more men, but the Bill is an admission of the failure of the Government's recruiting programme. I


hope that when the time comes the Minister will not require these men, but if that should prove to be the case he should have the opportunity of appearing at the Dispatch Box and patting himself on the back that he does not require them.
I am opposed to National Service in time of peace. It will undoubtedly create a great deal of hardship and many anomalies. The House of Commons should on every possible occasion be jealous of the freedom of the individual. I see no reason why the Amendment should be objected to. It would give the House one more opportunity to exercise the freedom it has always had to discuss matters of defence and of the Army. The Secretary of State should be glad to have this opportunity when it presents itself.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) says that the Bill is unfair. Of course it is. Any system which calls up one person and not another is unfair within the meaning of the word as the Committee is using it today. But the Amendment does nothing to remove unfairness. All it does is to permit us to discuss under an Order what the Opposition have been saying will be discussed anyway, Order or no, in the House. So I do not think that we are being carried any further in discussing unfairness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the Bill. He asked my right hon. Friend to be able to calculate in advance the very large numbers of men he would find necessary to call up in various categories. He entirely overlooked that the number of Regulars which the Army will have will never be static. We cannot know, even month by month, what the number will be, nor what categories they will be in. We do not know the requirement to be made up by men caught by Clauses 1 and 2.
Various methods are being employed to increase the number of Regulars, We do not know what the response will be, or what the international situation will be. Changes in the international situation have important reflections in recruiting. Therefore, it would be idle for my right hon. Friend to say that over the next

six months he wants 10,000 drivers, 6,000 signallers and 5,000 Medical Corps men. He would certainly be wrong and it would be an exercise in guesswork which would not be for the profit of this Committee.
The need is not to retain large blocks of people in each command but to retain men in certain categories in order to meet the deficiencies in those categories. Let us imagine, for instance, that there is need to keep a gunner regiment in Hong Kong, but that a number of its signallers are due for discharge on the same day. Unfortunately and unfairly—we might as well admit it—the need is to keep back a proportion or all of those signallers until they can be replaced by other Regulars from home.

Mr. Albert Evans: I fail to follow this argument. I see nothing in the Amendments which would require the Minister to specify to the House of Commons the particular categories he wishes to retain. I understand that the Amendment to line 21, which is the obvious Amendment we are discussing, would mean that the Minister would be required to lay an Order which would be quite comprehensive but would not specify the particular category of Service men required.

Mr. Kershaw: I was following up the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, who had understood that the Amendment would make it necessary for the Secretary of State to specify the sort of people he wanted. That is what my hon. Friend understood, I believe.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to say this discourteously but it seems at the moment that not only is what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) saying not in the Amendment but it is not in the Bill. The Secretary of State has never suggested—[Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friends will stop talking at the top of their voices for a moment while I am speaking. I cannot continue in this noise. I am not so young as I was. I have never heard a demonstration like that before.
Surely the hon. Gentleman should know that the Secretary of State has never suggested that it is his intention to


say, "We want half a dozen signallers in Hong Kong. Let us issue a directive about that", and then to wait for the situation to alter in Germany, and say, "We are short of drivers in Berlin. Lei us issue a directive about that."
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this will be a continuing power to the Secretary of State to use daily or half-daily, just as the Minister of Transport makes Orders about roads once every couple of hours. The Secretary of State has never declared that intention. If such is his intention then we should have a little more information about it, for it is difficult to know how he can carry out the promise to give the earliest information to everybody concerned if he is not to know what his intentions are until six months' time.

Mr. Kershaw: In that case if the hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted it, the purpose of the Amendment is difficult to follow. If the Secretary of State is only to come once to the House of Commons and lay an Order proposing an Amendment to Clause 1, he could come on the day after the Bill becomes an Act and say that he proposes to implement Clause 1, and that could be the last we should hear of it. We should not have an opportunity of discussing it at any other time. We should have an opportunity on only one occasion.
Hon. Members oposite have said in interjections that no one could imagine that these call-ups or retentions will escape publicity. It has also been said that these matters will be debated in the House on every occasion when a constituent of an hon. Member is called up. If the object of the Amendment is to achieve discussion of the matter, then we shall reach that object far more easily without it.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) is asking what is the object of the Amendment. This Bill provides powers of which the Minister says, "I do not want them now, but I expect to want them. I hope that, if position gets a lot better I may not want them at all." In these circumstances, is it unreasonable or untidy to ask the Secretary of State to come here when he wants them and present an Order, rather than spread the process about? This would be a tidy way and would

leave to Parliament its traditional control over members of the Army.

Mr. Kershaw: How can Parliament have this control over members of the Army if the Secretary of State is not to say how many people he is to retain? If we are to discuss it from time to time it seems to me that our control is greater. The Amendment militates against the purpose claimed for it by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry that the Committee has the impression that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) does not understand the Amendment when he talks of it being idle. I read it through after writing it, and if he had also read it he would not talk as he is doing. There is no question of asking the Secretary of State to give away any particular information. So far, we have never yet been given the Reserve figures, and we are discussing this matter in a vaccuum.
All the Amendment does is to ask the right hon. Gentleman to exercise power under Clauses 1 or 2 to come to the House for approval. This is the same procedure followed in the old days after mobilisation, when, if the Secretary of State called up reserves, the House of Commons needed to be told that they were being called up. That has been the practice for 300 years and I see no reason to depart from it because it suits the hon. Member's convenience.

Mr. Kershaw: It is not a question of suiting my convenience but of whether we are to allow the Army to be moved about flexibly and in sufficient strength to meet the different needs which arise in the future at different times. The criticism that we are giving the Secretary of State a blank cheque is not a criticism at all. That is exactly what he needs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in relation to a very limited number of men and the limited period for which the Bill is to apply. We are not giving the Secretary of State power to call up everybody in the land permanently, or for a long time. We are giving him power to call up people who will be eligible to be called up for six months, and it has been made clear that the Secretary of State has limited himself in the Bill. Within that rigid framework


there is no offence to our Parliamentary traditions, but he is enabled to call up either the maximum of the 100,000 whom he said would become eligible, or the much smaller number which he expects to call up.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: A blank cheque not to overdraw.

Mr. Kershaw: Exactly. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) says, licence to overdraw and to come to Parliament and tell us what he has done. The Secretary of State is being given credit to be able to overdraw.

Mr. Hale: It is not his account.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend must have misheard what I said. I was suggesting that we must talk in terms of cheques and that this is a blank cheque not to overdraw.

Mr. Kershaw: I do not think that the Amendment achieves what it sets out to do. We will have more opportunity to discuss this limited call-up under the Bill as it stands than we would have if the Amendment were passed.
It has been said as a criticism that this is only temporary.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member says that we should have other opportunities to discuss the call-up. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Kershaw: I am not sure, but I think that it was the hon. Member for Aberavon himself who was arguing that every time anybody was called up Questions would be asked and we should have an opportunity to discuss the matter. That seemed to be said almost as a threat to cure the Secretary of State, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), from thinking that it could be hidden under a bushel. It was put forward as an argument in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member knows that there is all the difference between asking Questions and having a full day's debate. The call-up for those affected is very serious, and we believe that it should be dealt with in a proper way in a proper debate in which

hon. Members from both sides could take part. If there is to be only an occasional Question about Sapper Snooks and so on, that is not good enough. We will get a situation in which every hon. Member will be putting down Questions to the Secretary of State asking why various individuals are being called up. Such a situation would be ridiculous and we do not want it to occur. If the hon. Member is a good democrat, why does he not want a good debate?

Mr. Kershaw: I do not object to a good debate, but we shall have more under the Bill as it stands than through the Amendment.

Mr. Morris: In what way?

Mr. Kershaw: We have both stated our points of view about this issue.

Mr. John Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that he is perfectly right in what he says in that, although the process may start by a number of Questions being asked by hon. Members, there is no doubt that if there is strong feeling in the House about the matter, it would lead to debates, even if they were only Adjournment debates?

Mr. Kershaw: I was about to address myself to the criticism that this was only a temporary solution to a permanent problem. It is perfectly clear that a temporary need will arise in twelve months from now. The sort of men we want in the Army to bridge that temporary gap after the last National Service man would otherwise have left are trained men. It would not be to the national interest to call up large numbers of people and give them nine months' training to keep them for what we hope would be a short time while the Regular Army was built up to the necessary numbers. The fact that the Bill is temporary should recommend it to good democrats. The fact that it is temporary and has a good military reason behind it should also commend it. The argument that it is a temporary solution to a permanent problem turns upon itself and is not valid.

Mr. Shinwell: I am convinced that the reason why there have been so many interjections in the past 15 or 20 minutes is partly a conspiracy to prevent me from making a speech. I have been trying to catch your eye during that period, Sir William. I have


found all the ideas which have been engendered in my head gradually disappearing because of those interjections, but there are still one or two items to which I find it possible to address myself.
The first thing to say to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and the Secretary of State for War is that if the right hon. Gentleman had originally drafted a Bill which specified categorically that on a certain date, say, 1st April—an appropriate date—he intended to call up 60,000 men, we should have understood it and he would have saved himself the need for debating the Amendment. We should then have known exactly where we stood.
That is not what he did. He was not sure what he wanted and he is not sure yet. It depends on the circumstances. He may call up 10,000 men. He may call up none. He is very vague and nebulous and the whole position is confused. It is precisely because of the confusion that we want to pin him down on one issue and ensure that before he calls up a group of men, whatever their categories, he will give the House of Commons the reason why. That is a sound proposition to put before the Committee.
All we are arguing is that when the right hon. Gentleman, on the advice he receives from the Army Council, or whoever now advises him, decides that he wants to step up the number of men for a particular purpose, for example, in order to increase the number of units in B.A.O.R. or anything of the sort, we should be told explicitly and without any vagueness, so that not only hon. Members, but the country and the men concerned, know why they are being called up. That is fair enough.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman needs the men at all and I said so on Second Reading. The Government do not produce one scintilla of evidence that the men are required. I know what has happened and other hon. Members must be aware of it. The Americans decided to step up the number of units in Germany and we had to follow their lead. What is to happen to those men? What are they to do? What is the purpose of sending more men to Germany? We cannot afford to pay for the men already there. We are having difficulties with the West German Government about costs. We are not

sending them there to engage in fighting, so what is the purpose? Is it as a deterrent? Does anyone believe that sending another 10,000 men—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am most reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not go too wide of this series of Amendments.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not at all object to being interrupted, and least of all by you, Sir William.

Mr. Kershaw: I have been trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument and, as I understand it, he is saying that under the Amendment the Secretary of State will come to the House of Commons and lay an Order specifying how many men he wants and why he wants them. That is exactly the opposite of what I understood to be the purpose of the Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be, but I am stating my point of view. What is wrong with that? This is a free Assembly and we can say what we think.

Mr. A. Evans: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not arguing that it will be necessary for the Secretary of State for War to specify a particular category. The Secretary of State may make his own choice, and there is nothing in the Amendment or in the Bill which obliges him to specify categories.

Mr. Shinwell: I did not suggest that there was. If and when the Secretary of State requires the men he can say, not that he wants Jack Jones, or John Smith, or Andrew Brown, or whoever it may be, to stay in for another six months—nobody expects that; let us not be stupid about this—but that he wants 10,000 men. I am not saying that he should specify the categories. I am not saying that he should say, "Out of the 10,000 men I want 50 signallers because we are short of them, or so many men for the Pay Corps because we are short of them"—not that that would matter anyhow. It is not that at all. But if the Secretary of State says that he wants 10,000 men, we are entitled to ask why he wants them. I am not sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would


not ask Questions about the purpose of calling up these men.
Is there anything secret about it? If the Secretary of State retained 10,000 men without asking the House to consent to his doing this, the whole country would know that these men had been retained, because the men themselves would make a song and dance about it and there would be any amount of publicity.
I trust the right hon. Gentleman. I am not suggesting that he is unworthy of our trust. I am not saying that he is unrealiable, or anything of the sort. I am not making any accusations, but I do know the generals better than he does. I have had a lot of experience of them. I know that they can absorb men. They lap them up. If they have 20 men, they want 25; but when they get 25 they want 50. If they get eighteen months National Service they want it to be extended to two years, only to discover that two years is not long enough in which to train a man. I have gone through all this.
It may be suggested that I do not trust the generals. I trust them all right. They are quite good generals, but I do not trust them to make political decisions, and this is a political decision. It is not a military matter. Sending another 10,000 men to the B.A.O.R. will make little difference, except to satisfy the Americans and to satisfy our amour-propre, or our vanity. It is no good. We must be practical about this. Do we really need these men? If we do, when do we need them, and how many do we want? The right hon. Gentleman should tell us that before calling up these men.
The hon. Member for Stroud made a useful admission. He admitted that there was an unfairness about the Bill. There certainly is a distinct unfairness about it. It is bound to be unfair in its operation if it means selecting one man instead of another.

Sir H. Legge Bourke: We all agree about that.

Mr. Shinwell: Then why does the hon. Gentleman do these unfair things? There must be a reason for them? One may do unfair things and commit acts of injustice only in times of emergency. I can

understand that, but there is no emergency here. Anybody who understands what is going on in Germany knows that the sending there of another 10,000 men will mean nothing whatever in terms of building up our military strength.

Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Gentleman said that we were unfair, but this is a Measure to enable us to defend our country. Was not he unfair during his term of office when he extended National Service?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said. It was he who said that it was unfair to select one man instead of another.

Mr. Kershaw: I did not advocate selecting everybody.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman started by putting one foot in it, and now he has them both in. There is all this talk about overdrafts and blank cheques. This Bill has been brought in because the defence policy of the Government has gone bankrupt. This is not good enough. It is becoming sharp practice. I repeat that I do not believe that the calling up, or retaining, of another 10,000 men will make the slightest difference to our military strength.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant me to answer his question. When I said across the Floor of the Committee that we all agreed that the Bill was unfair he asked why we had brought it in. I do not think that I can do better than quote what Field Marshal Lord Harding said on television on 6th November. He said:
I do not see what else it"—
the Government—
can do, because cutting commitments will take time.
I share that view.

Mr. Shinwell: Field Marshal Lord Harding is an able man. I have a high regard for his ability and his judgment, but I should not be surprised if he said, "I do not suppose that there is anything else we can do, because the Government have never taken sound advice about building up our military organisation". Consider the various Defence White Papers. We have had a succession of White Papers ringing the


changes all the time. That is our trouble.
I was going to say something else before the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, but I have forgotten what it was. No doubt it was extremely important, and I am doing my best to recall what it was.
It comes to this, that the right hon. Gentleman, finding himself faced with this difficulty, has to retain men for a certain period. I do not believe that it will make any difference to our position. Why does not he take the advice that I gave him on Second Reading and train the Territorials effectively, pay them properly, give them a proper bounty, call them up for weekends or every month, and give them proper training and build up a proper reserve in this country?
I remember now what I was going to say. If we are going to retain men, why not keep them in this country? If that were done, I should not object quite so much. Do not send them to Germany. They will not be of any value there. In fact, we ought to withdraw men from Germany and bring them home. They will be just as effective here as they are there.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand that if he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, if he wants this blank cheque, if he wants suddenly to announce that he intends to call up or retain a number of men, and we are reduced to merely asking Questions in the House, he will be in for a warm and rough time because we will be fortified by the criticism, discontent and disquiet among the young men and their families, and this will do no good to the Army.
The hon. Member for Stroud referred to my actions in the past, when in 1950–51 I retained men in the Army. It was done for the specific purpose of enabling this country to make its contribution to a brigade to be sent to Korea. That was a different proposition. I retained the Regulars for twelve months, as I was entitled to do. I prevented men from going out, but, as I say, that was for a definite purpose, and at the time a very worthy purpose. When one is acting in an emergency and protecting national interests, the position is

different. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate what the position was then? We were faced with tension in Europe, the possibility of aggression from Russia, and at the same time trouble in Korea. We had to do what we did. I do not apologise for what I did then, but the situation now is different.
I want to make it clear that I am not against the building up of our Army by Regular forces, but I am convinced that National Service is no longer of any value. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), with whom I have worked all along on these matters, but I cannot believe that it is of any further value. I want a Regular force. I want it efficiently trained, highly mobile, with effective striking power which can be used if necessary. I want an efficient Army, but I do not believe that this is the right way to get it. I believe that this method is inimical to Regular recruitment. I do not think that it is a good thing. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think twice before he decides to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Profumo: I have listened for nearly 2½ hours to hon. Members speaking to this group of Amendments, and it may now be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene. I have sufficiently collected the views of a large number of hon. Members, and my speaking now will not inhibit any other hon. Member from speaking afterwards.
I waited purposely until after the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) had spoken. Towards the end of his speech he said that when he was in office and took the decision to retain certain National Service men—for which I do not criticise him in any way—he did so in order to be able to carry out a commitment to our allies in a crisis. Although it is a different situation today, it is precisely for that reason that I am seeking powers in the Bill.
I have been asked why I am taking this action. It is in order that I may have power to retain a number of National Service men to maintain our contribution towards our alliance in Europe. This situation is certainly different from that which existed at the time of the Korean war, but it is comparable to some degree, and that is the


broad reason for my seeking this power under the Clause.
I well appreciate the reasons that motivated the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Members who have spoken to the Amendments. I understand their point of view, but I must try to explain to the Committee the problems which these Amendments would raise. There has been much talk about calling up and retaining men, but I am not sure that every hon. Member is quite clear about what we are trying to do, and I want to make it clearer. Clause 2 contains a permissive power to recall, under certain circumstances; but this Clause is a "once only" operation.
The hon. Member for Dudley asked how this necessity arises, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) answered his question. It arises from a need for more trained men of certain categories in B.A.O.R. next year. This is what I must try to produce. Let the Committee criticise the way in which it thinks we have gone wrong in the past, but this is the problem with which the Government are faced at present. In the Second Reading debate I said that those men in B.A.O.R. whose release fell on or after 1st April, 1962, must assume that they would be retained. Some hon. Members said that that was not precise enough. I will be as precise as I can.
We may or we may not need these people. I have tried to be precise, and I have said that unless the crisis gets worse—in which case we may have to take action earlier—we can refrain from retaining people until 1st April, 1962. When I spoke about "equal misery for all" I was meaning—and every hon. Member who has received letters from serving soldiers knows this—that men are not happy about being retained. These people have their civilian lives, and conscription is only an incident in their lives. In this case, we have tried to ensure that we hold back no more men than we need. Of course, when the right hon. Member faced this problem he held on to the whole lot. We have not considered it necessary to hold on to the lot in this case. We have determined to hold only the number com-

mensurate with the problem on hand. with which we have to deal under the Clause.
6.45 p.m.
I want to emphasise that the people we are going to keep will be of certain categories, in which shortages now exist in B.A.O.R. That is why I cannot be as precise as I would like. I shall try to be a little more precise later on in my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked whether this action would precede any recall under Clause 2, or any calling up of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, if we formed it. I can give him an undertaking that this provision concerns the retention only of a number of people in certain categories for service in B.A.O.R., and nothing more.
As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has told the Committee, I have given an assurance that as much notice as possible will be given, and that most of the men to be retained will receive more than two months' notice. This, again, is an attempt to help people who may have to make emergency plans because of this change in their lives. To give effect to my undertaking it will be necessary to operate the powers provided under the Clause immediately the Bill becomes law. If we are to help those people who will be held back in the earlier categories after April, we must give them as much personal notice as we can so as to put them on warning.
If we are to give them two months' notice we are going to be hard pushed. At this moment it looks unlikely that we shall obtain the Royal Assent in time for me to give everybody two months' notice, and therefore I am considering the possibility of warning certain men in the early release groups, before the Bill becomes law, that we shall have to retain them if Parliament grants the necessary power. I am taking advice on this point, but the only way to be fair to these people will be to act immediately the Bill becomes law, or to warn them individually, even before the Bill becomes law, that they may be held.

Mr. Paget: By saying that, is not the Minister conceding the case for the Amendments? He says that it is not necessary to wait for the Bill to become law before warning these men. In that


case an Order would not be necessary either. He can issue his warnings, but before he puts them into operation he should inform the House.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better listen to the whole argument. Time is getting fairly short, and if I am to give people an accurate warning I must give them notice as far ahead as possible. For that I need the immediate operation of the Clause. The delay involved if the affirmative Resolution procedure were followed would be unacceptable in the situation that we have to face, and I cannot see what could be gained by a further discussion after the debates that take place during the passage of the Bill and before next April.
I do not see how the House of Commons could benefit by having a further discussion in that short time. The circumstances which require the retention of men exist now, and if they still exist in April we will need to take action at once. If they do not exist, and things get a great deal better, I have already said that we will not use this power. I have assured the House that we shall not retain one more man than is required for strictly military purposes.
The hon. Member for Dudley said that when this action was taken before, under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Easington, Regular soldiers were also retained. He made the point that it would be fairer if we were to retain Regulars as well as National Service men. I see the point about fairness. But the situation is different from what it was then. There was then a war on. The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the emergency, and we were operating under emergency powers. Therefore he could retain Regular soldiers although, in effect, it was breaking the commitment which they had entered into voluntarily. Today the situation is different, and I take the view that it would be "welshing" on the Regular soldier who had voluntarily entered into a commitment—

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Is it not the same when dealing with the National Service man?

Mr. Profumo: No, the position is different. The National Service man is there because the law of 1948 placed

upon him an obligation to serve as a National Service man. He did not volunteer as did the Regular soldier—

Mr. Crossman: It is a different kind of "welshing".

Mr. Profumo: I would not concede that at all. The point is that if we did seek to do this it would not help us very much, because the Regular soldiers coming out of the Regular Army during the six months about which we are talking, the extension next year, would not be a large number and would not really fit the categories which we desire to fill in B.A.O.R.

Mr. Paget: Is it the case of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not want to "welsh" or that in this case "welshing" would not do any good?

Mr. Profumo: It is neither of those things. If this is "welshing", I give hon. Members opposite the benefit of the doubt in respect of whether what they did was or was not welshing also.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) made a suggestion about the form in which monthly recruiting figures are issued, and I recognise the tie-up between the number of people we are to get and the number of people we should have to keep back. It seems to me that there is substance in his suggestion and that there is likely to be room for improvement. I will give an undertaking to raise this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to see whether we can achieve a form which is absolutely clear and not open to any misinterpretation.

Mr. Shinwell: Would that include the reserves?

Mr. Profumo: It is a question of recruiting figures. My hon. Friend said that we are not giving enough information.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to restore the quarterly returns which we used to get and which gave a breakdown of the figures and which now we do not get. I presume for reasons of economy?

Mr. Profumo: That is a matter which I will discuss with my right hon. Friend.
I have been asked how many men we are likely to wish to retain. I have been


asked whether it is possible to give some indication of the number of people whom I am likely to wish to retain. This is perfectly reasonable and is one of the things which if we accepted the Amendment the Committee would be entitled to know at the time when we discussed an Order. I think we shall have to retain something like 15,000 men all told, the whole way through the next six months. That is the best guess which I can give. It depends to a certain extent on how the Regular recruiting goes, and so on. But in order to stop the figures of B.A.O.R. from running down, and, therefore, to make our contribution in this way to the crisis in Europe, I reckon that we shall have to hold about 15,000.

Mr. Wigg: This exactly confirms the sum which I did during the Second Reading debate, and this is within the mathematical ability of us all. It means that 165,000 plus 15,000 makes 180,000, which right from the time of the 1957 White Paper we have said was the real strength which the Army required.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member is very astute in these matters, but he might wait until I have finished what I have to say. I have been asked how many men we shall have at the end of 1962, and if the hon. Member for Dudley has done the sum his answer is not quite right. We shall have about 170,000 men left in the Army at the end of next year, of whom about 10,000 will be National Service men. They will be still serving because they are being retained for six months.

Mr. B. Harrison: My right hon. Friend has said that there will be about 170,000 men, of whom about 10,000 will be National Service men. Would that mean a Regular complement of about 160,000 and that that is all the Regular soldiers he expects to get?

Mr. Profumo: No. The point is that on the very worst figures we can possibly find, and even with recruiting going far worse than at present, these are the sort of figures. It shows the danger of trying to give figures because everyone makes his own deductions. Had I desired not to give the figures I should not have done so, but I am anxious to ensure that this Committee,

the House and the country are properly informed. But it is easy for everyone to make their own deductions, including statisticians—and I have some statisticians helping me too. We get all sorts of different answers. But I thought that the Committee was entitled to have some idea of the figures.
I wish now to discuss the application of Clause 2. I have been asked to say again how many men I shall be likely to want to call back, but it is impossible to tell, quite impossible. I have already told the Committee that the conditions under which we should possibly want to recall X National Service men are conditions of mounting tension, probably after 1963, and during the period when the Regular forces are still mounting to the 180,000 level. I cannot tell. How can I tell at any moment what would be the shortage in any category which would make it necessary to call up men? I cannot in advance give the numbers required, but I repeat that they would be a fraction of the total number available to us at the time.
I cannot accept the Amendment referring to Clause 2 for those reasons. It is impossible, because it would nullify the whole cause for having Clause 2 if the House were not sitting and I had accepted that I must lay an Order before we could call back any men. With tension mounting quickly, we could not use the provisions of Clause 2 for the purpose for which we need it. It would not be possible as I have said. Hon. Members will find that in Clause 4 (4) it states:
The Secretary of State shall from time to time report to Parliament with respect to the exercise of his powers to recall persons under section two or call out persons under section three of this Act, and any such report may be made, as the Secretary of State thinks fit, either with respect to any use made or with respect of any use proposed to be made, of those powers.
It is drawn up in that way because we wish Parliament to be informed. If there were a Recess at the time, we should still have to take action and we should have to report to Parliament as soon as possible afterwards.
This goes a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman. He will see that the intention is that we should keep Parliament informed. We shall give all the information possible. The only thing I cannot


accept it that I should be tied by an obligation to lay a Statutory Instrument before I take power to do this at the beginning of next year. I wish to give as much notice as possible of when we shall have to use these powers. I cannot possibly accept a condition which might modify the call-up under Clause 2 and I hope that the Committee will realise why I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misjudges the House of Commons when he says that if there was mounting tension the House would not back him —

Mr. Profumo: I did not say that.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman said that if there were mounting tension and this Amendment were accepted he would not be able to call up men immediately, or almost immediately, because of the terms of the Amendment.
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend. If there were mounting tension and we were faced with such a situation at the present time I should vote against the Amendment. If the country were in such a situation that a call-up was necessary in order to meet an emergency—the right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is the Clause with which he is concerned—and if we were faced with the kind of emergency which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind we should be facing what would amount almost to a state of war. Every one of us capable of carrying arms might be called up into the Army. It is not a valid argument to say that we should be harming the right hon. Gentleman's desires for call-up in an emergency if we passed the Amendment.
7.0 p.m.
Everyone admits that the Clause will operate unfairly. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that in some way it would be even more unfair to Regular soldiers than it will be to the young men called up to do their National Service. The Government could never convince a National Service man that he was not being unfairly treated by being kept in the Army for another six months. Every National Service man clearly understood that he would serve for only two years. They have all made their commitments. Each one of them thought that he knew

the date of his discharge. Now suddenly in some haphazard fashion individuals are to be told that they are to be retained for another six months. It is a very unfair system.
I do not understand why the Secretary of State objects to Parliament being told the numbers and to the House of Commons discussing it. I can imagine nothing more democratic. If he decides to call up 15,000 men, there is no reason why he should not lay an Order before Parliament at the earliest opportunity and say why he needs the men and in what arms he needs them. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that there is no secret about it. He might well be able to say that the Army needs so many signallers and so many engineers. If he told the House of Commons the numbers required and the reasons he would probably carry everyone with him.
This is the first time for a long time that I have spoken in an Army debate. I am one of those who believe in adequate defence forces, but I strongly object to the Bill. I would have supported a Bill—here I may be going out on a limb—providing for conscription as a whole or the continuation of it, if the state of the country showed that it was necessary. I certainly believe that the principle of conscription is right. I have always believed that, when the state of the country justifies it.
But any form of selective service is bad. It can never be justified. As Members of Parliament we shall have an appallingly difficult job trying to explain to any constituent who writes to us why he in particular should be called up again or retained. I do not come from a constituency where the people are mad about the Army, but I go on record as saying that one thing of which the British people can be convinced is the fairness of applying the call-up to everyone—the rich man's son and the poor man's son. They understand such an argument, but what is being done by the Bill is absolutely criminal.
The Bill will apply to the B.A.O.R. troops. It is a little hard on a National Service boy who happened to be sent over to Germany because that was the luck of the draw. He is to be retained. A boy who has not been over to Germany and has been one of the lucky ones may be all right. In the last war


there were many lucky ones who never left the country and never fired a shot in their lives. However, they still carry certain ranks. If someone is the sort of soldier who stays at home and comes out all right in the draw, he will not be affected; he will not be called up for six months. However, if he is serving in B.A.O.R. he will be retained for another six months. Not only will he have served eighteen months away from home, with the usual difficulties associated with service overseas: he will have to serve another six months away from home.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on tabling the Amendment. My hon. Friends and I think that the House of Commons should discuss any question of injustice to any of these people. I do not understand why hon. Members opposite do not welcome it. We must not be fobbed off with the argument that the War Office will be restricted. Are we to be seriously told that the British Army is in such a state that the extension of service of 15,000 men by six months is a matter of major importance? I do not believe it. I cannot believe it.
I do not think that the Minister dealt with the points adequately. The only valid argument he tried to advance was that if the Amendment were carried it might delay call-up. That is not true, and he knows it. He should have a better opinion of the House of Commons than that. If there were an emergency which demanded the recall of men to the Army or the retention of men in the Army and Parliament were in recess, the Minister would merely have to contact Mr. Speaker and Parliament could be recalled immediately. We would all return and give him support, if he could convince the House of Commons that the foreign affairs situation justified what he was asking for.
We are in this state because of indecision by the Government in their policy and outlook. I believe in conscription as a principle. It is right. If the Government can prove conclusively that there are not enough Regulars to make the Army efficient, I go on record as saying that conscription is right and I would support it. However, I stress that it must always be proved that there

are not enough Regulars to meet the need. That is the grave doubt, because at no time have I heard the right hon. Gentleman or any one in the Government justify what they are asking for. If the right hon. Gentleman could justify his statement that more men are required, it should apply to all and not only to some. As the Bill is framed, it will be selective.
The Secretary of State can forget Members of Parliament and keep them out of the argument, but he is under a duty to the men involved to stand at the Dispatch Box and make a great speech explaining why they are to be called up. He should make a speech that they can understand, because at the end of the day he will be left with soldiers who will absolutely loathe the Army. The Army does not want men in that state of mind. There is a certain percentage of conscripts now who are in the Army against their will. If it is done on this basis, there will be a section of men in the Army who will resent being there and will loathe the Army. What sort of efficiency shall we get from that?
I served in the Army for six years during the last war, so I know a little bit about it. I had the privilege, for what it was worth, of going through every rank in the British Army up to major. I do not shout much about it, but I know a little bit about the Army. I can honestly say that I could not get out of it quick enough. That was understandable. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was perfectly right in his argument on conscription. There will always be only a certain percentage of men who like the Army. It is exactly the same with the Police Force and any other service. Even if I were tall enough, which I am not, I could not do a policeman's job for £50 a week. There are certain jobs which only a certain type of person can do.
I am one of those who believe that the Minister's whole approach has not been realistic. The selective basis is the worst compromise he could have thought of. If he had had any courage, he would have proved his case for conscription as a whole. But he has not done that. He has tried to compromise. My bet is that at the end of the day we shall have full conscription. This is a party political issue. My hon. Friend


the Member for Dudley may need a little support in this. He has been arguing this on his own for some time. The Government under-estimate the British people. If they tell them the truth and convince them that conscription as such is necessary, they will win the day. But if they do what they are trying to do in the Bill they will not get anything except contempt. They will end up with 15,000 men who, even if they like the Army at the moment, will come to hate it.
I can assure the Minister that when these men receive their gentle warning letters from the War Office telling them that they are to be retained in Germany for another six months, the sparks will begin to fly. I can imagine the scene in the barrack rooms. One soldier will say to another, "Have you got one of these letters?" The reply will be, "No, I have not got one. I am all right. I am going home next Wednesday week." The first soldier will say. "I have got one. What are they keeping me for?" The soldier will have no right of appeal. There is to be no independent tribunal. I can understand this, because there must be discipline in the Army. Whatever the orders from above are, they must be obeyed. I do not know why they are obeyed, but they are. There must be discipline in the Army.
I disagree with the Bill in its entirety. Parliament should be able to discuss this point which is so unfair to a certain section of men. Of course Parliament will approve it if the Minister lays an Order. He will gang up all his crowd behind him, and that will be that. We have seen that sort of thing many times during the last eleven years. He will get his Order. I do not understand why he wants to deny Parliament the opportunity of having a full discussion on matters of this kind.
I say this with great respect to you, Mr. Hynd. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Minister went wide of the Amendment and discussed the whole subject matter of the Clause. In fact, I thought that he was making a speech more appropriate to the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Other hon. Members may well have to do the same at a later stage in our discussion on this Amendment and on others.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): If that is intended as a criticism of the Chair, I point out that the Minister did not go nearly as wide as the hon. Member has gone.

Mr. Mellish: That is very fair, Mr. Hynd. I can only say that you are a very tolerant Chairman. I wish you had been here last night. We should not have been in half as much difficulty if you had been.
This Amendment tries to give a certain element of justice to an unjust Bill, and it places the responsibility on the Members of the House of Commons when discussing what numbers are likely to be called up by the Minister. It will give the Minister a chance to explain which arms of the Service are to be added to or which are to retain certain men. We can cut out all this stuff and nonsense about our enemies being told in advance, because I suggest that they have a better intelligence service than we have. At least, they would be a poor lot if they had not. I hope the Government will concede this right that here in Parliament we should discuss in detail not only the numbers of men to be called up, but the reasons why.

Mr. Crossman: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said by going back to the Minister's speech. Reflecting upon it, I found myself thinking that it was not necessarily true that if we have a small dirty thing the best thing to do is to cover it up with volubility. The longer the right hon. Gentleman talked about the Clause and the wider he went in defending it the more awkward it was and the greater were the difficulties it raised in my mind. I had not thought of the significance of these things until he spoke, and I was reflecting on what was the right hon. Gentleman's justification for his speech.
He tells us now that the whole justification for it is an emergency, a crisis. I do not believe a word of it. As my hon. Friend said, if there was a crisis the right hon. Gentleman should take desperate measures. There is no crisis in Berlin which makes the Bill necessary. There is a crisis which the Government knew was coming. For months, they have been told this in debate. It was a crisis due to the fact that they had


welshed on their figures, because they needed 180,000 men and they have got only 165,000. We know the kind of crisis they had.
I am told by people who know the Press that a conference was held only two days before the Queen's Speech at which it was stated that there would not be a Bill of this sort mentioned in the Queen's Speech. That was off the record. After that, it was spatchcocked into the Queen's Speech. This explains the kind of Bill before us.

Mr. Profumo: Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on that? It certainly did not happen in the War Office, and it had nothing to do with my Department. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there was a Press conference?

Mr. Crossman: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on the Press conference that was held.

Viscount Lambton: May I put a question to my right hon. Friend? Will he say how long before that the plan was prepared by his Ministry?

Mr. Profumo: It was certainly prepared well in advance. As the Committee knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, as did the Prime Minister, told the House that all through the summer that we were considering this problem. It is perfectly clear to the Committee. I thought the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we had a Press Conference at which it was said that it would not be in the Queen's Speech.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I think we shall want to know a little more from the right hon. Gentleman. I was told by a friend I trust that only a few days before they were expressly told that there would be no Bill of this kind.
I understand that sometimes the Government have to alter the Queen's Speech because of the requirements of politics—Atlantic politcs—and that it is often convenient to insert something. What he said about the emergency is true, to this extent—in order to look as though we were doing something about Berlin and were increasing our

conventional forces, and it was convenient to have this Bill. We should be clear about what the Minister means, because, Berlin or no Berlin he would still have needed to find the men. What he is doing now—I repeat what I said on Second Reading in order to justify the Amendment of my hon. Friend—is that he is introducing a counterfeit selective draft in order to conceal the fact that he is short on the figures.
What we are now discussing is a kind of penalty the British public should pay to cover this call-up. The Government do not want too much publicity. They reckon that the 20,000 people concerned will know nothing about it and everybody else will keep quiet. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have another debate, and what we are asking for is a day's debate on an affirmative Order, and a discussion of this matter in order that the British people may see what is being done. I want people to understand the exact nature of what he is doing. My impression is that the Minister thinks it is a tremendous problem to get people to understand because of the nature of the call-up and he wants only a few people to know and not the general public in the country to know anything about it. The more the general public reflect on the nature of the call-up and the more they consider the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey in his speech, the angrier they will get, but when I go to my constituents I find that I have constantly to tell them because they do not know that we have a selective call-up of a special sort introduced in this dirty little Bill; I have to tell them about it. What are their reactions when I explain these things to them? They are not enthusiastic about the Bill, but they show a certain interest in the sort of things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey was saying with a certain indignation. I appreciate the Minister saying why should we go on debating it in public, but we want very much the British people to know what the Government are doing, because if they knew it would put a stop to it.
Perhaps the worst thing of all in the Minister's speech was what he said about an emergency. He showed a scandalous tardiness in carrying this thing out. If


that is true, then to find oneself in a crisis, a grave emergency, having to pass Bills, of this sort, is probably the worst defence that one could make—and, indeed, it is a defence, as so often happens, which makes the crime considerably worse. I am hoping for more interventions from the Minister to justify the crime, because each will illuminate more clearly the nature of the crime, and the nature of the crime is continual makeshift, continually avoiding facing the problem of the 1956 White Paper, continually avoiding facing the fact that, having abolished National Service before he had got the minimum number of men, he falls back on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey was frank over this problem. I share his view. I would rather have National Service than put ourselves in this desperate situation in which we are dependent on nuclear weapons and unable to play our role. I believe that the British public would rather have what we had in 1956 than what we have in 1961–62, as a result of five years delay. Now the Minister says that we have to do this because of the emergency in Berlin. He said that there was a threat to N.A.T.O. If there is a threat to N.A.T.O. on account of the British contribution, it has been there for the last five years.
It is absolutely clear. Year after year in this House in annual defence debates it has been pointed out from below the Gangway on both sides and no notice has been taken of it. Suddenly, at the last moment, we have to have this miserable makeshift Measure, this worst kind of selective draft, because there is nothing else that the Minister can think of to do about it. All he is doing is postponing for three years taking a decision. I wonder if the Minister will ask for another postponement. The reason why I am supporting with such energy my hon. Friend's Amendment is because of the demand for another full day's debate in order to impress upon the British public what is being done. I admit that in that debate we could not do more than find what was going on.
I hope that every debate on every Amendment will be as intense and thorough as this one. If we debate this matter for several days we may get the public to understand what is going on. I think some of us are determined about

that. We are glad to have the assistance of hon. Members on the back benches opposite. We are grateful to the Minister for ensuring that this Clause is seen against the whole complex military and diplomatic background. He plunged in and said, in effect, "I cannot let you have another debate." He did not quite say that. I think he said that he could not spare the time, but let us have a full discussion. There was a reference to the Minister discussing the matter with the House of Commons, but he did not guarantee to have a day for such discussion before next April.
All we are asking is that there should be an extra day for discussion of the affirmative Order. Then the right hon. Gentleman could save much time. If he were prepared to have an extra days' debate for that he need not waste time in discussing this Amendment. He is resisting this Amendment because he does not want to give a day's debate on an affirmative Order, and says that it is impossible. He gave many other reasons for resisting the Amendment, but why should it be impossible to devote one day to this matter and again to discuss it on the affirmative Order? It is not impossible, but only undesirable for the Minister's prestige in the mind of the public.
We should like the Minister once again to elaborate on why he wants the Bill, why he wants the call-up and why this extra day's debate should not come in due course when the matter is brought before Parliament again. If he does not tell us why, we shall know the reason. The reason will be that the Government are afraid of another discussion. That is the sole reason why they are opposing this Amendment. If that is not so, let the right hon. Gentleman give a single reason why, after his speech, he should not explain once again—with that brilliant lucidity he shows—the nature of the crisis and the tremendous emergency in N.A.T.O. The more we hear of this the more interested we get. I should like to hear another variation of it. Of course there will be a new excuse next spring. There will always be a new excuse for doing the same thing and covering it up.
Other hon. Members on this side of the Committee will want to put their reasons why we should carry this


Amendment before we go on to further discussions.

Mr. Marsh: One of the good things about the debate on this subject is that we have got away from the usual cosy discussion between a group of gentlemen who, with the greatest respect to them, are ex-Regular Army officers with a considerable knowledge of everything in the Army except the practical effects of post-war, peace-time conscription.
It is a good thing that we should discuss this Bill, because in the view of many people this is something which is intolerable in peace-time, unless the Government can say to the country that, not only is there a crisis—and, as many hon. Members have said, we are bound to live in a state of crisis for a long time to come—but a serious and immediate crisis, and if that were the case I think we should need something much larger than is provided for in this Bill. Two of my hon. Friends have said that they would prefer a form of conscription to this particular Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said that. One can see the arguments for that.

Mr. Mellish: At least it is honest.

Mr. Marsh: It is at least honest. The important thing is whether it would serve the purpose. I give my purely personal point of view as one who is not a defence expert but spent a gallant two and a half years in the Army in which one of my main achievements was to lead a successful concert party. I do not talk to generals using their Christian names or engage in barrack room gossip from the War Office. One of the ideas I have about conscription is that, even if we have any tolerable form of conscription, the belief that that would enable us to fight a pause in Europe and to avoid nuclear conflict is highly dangerous and completely unjustified by the facts. The position is that with any form of conscription which was tolerable, the best which this country—

The Temporary Chairman: I do not want to restrict the hon. Member too much. It is true that some hon. Members have made certain digressions into the subject of conscription—[An HON. MEMBER: "As did the Minister."]—and so did the Minister-but the hon. Member

for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has not yet mentioned the group of Amendments under discussion.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to you, Mr. Hynd, but the point I am making is very much tied up with these Amendments. The whole purpose of the argument behind these Amendments is that it is the job of the Government to justify this particular type of Measure when they want to introduce it.
It has been suggested that there are better ways of doing it than by this type of Measure. Obviously it would be out of order to pursue that point for very long, but I make the point on these Amendments that the idea that peacetime conscription of any type meets the problems which face this country and Europe at present is a highly dangerous idea. It is possible that a pause might be held with conventional forces, but I think that it is highly unlikely. I should have thought that in the intervening period the weight of numbers on the other side would be such and the devastation would be such that in a democracy we could not stop at that stage even if Parliament wanted to do so. The damage to men and women would be so considerable that we could not draw back and say that we had changed our minds.
The Amendments we are considering raise a very important point. They ask that before those who are in the process of serving a national engagement—or who have completed their national engagement—are required to go beyond the original contract, the Minister should come to the House and justify his action and tell us how large the inroad should be. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would agree that if we are to embark on any changes in conscription in peace time it is reasonable for Parliament to discuss them at the time in relation to the specific incidents which arise and make them necessary.
The Minister gave us a number of reasons why he could not accept these Amendments. He said, first, that the whole purpose of this exercise was that we have to maintain our commitment with our allies in this period of crisis. He went on to say—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he was thinking in


terms of extension of engagement for 15,000 men. I should have thought that 15,000 men would not enable us to meet our commitments in Europe. He went on to refer to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and compared this situation with what happened over the Korean War. If we were facing a position similar to that which my right hon. Friend faced at the time of Korea one could understand that the emergency is immediate, the demand clear and the crisis upon us.

Mr. Shinwell: And that it exists.

Mr. Marsh: And that it exists. My right hon. Friend was talking about the Measure he introduced, but he wanted a number to fill a brigade for a particular purpose and it was already in action. The position here is very different. What the Minister wants is more men for B.A.O.R. to meet a crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East rightly said, to suggest that this Bill is the result of the Berlin crisis is nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman has not actually said that, but I have the impression that that is what he inferred as the main argument in favour of the Bill.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Member will look at the Second Reading debate, he will see that that is precisely what my right hon. Friend said. He used the words:
As it is the situation in Europe that has made this legislation necessary, it is obviously B.A.O.R. that we have to stiffen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 47.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I should be interested if the Miniter would say—and this is a question which a non-expert like myself is entitled to ask—whether these powers to extend the engagements for 15,000 men is a result of the Berlin crisis and is designed to meet that crisis in Europe.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Prime Minister came to Gleneagles and was interviewed on the golf course there he said that there would be no fighting in Berlin?

Mr. Mellish: Thus no crisis.

Mr. Marsh: In recent months hon. Members have tended to attach less importance to the Prime Minister's statements than was the case hitherto. The statement to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred was not one of the right hon. Gentleman's best, anyway.
If, in fact, the Minister does not require these men with whom the Amendment is concerned for the crisis in Berlin we are entitled to ask for what crisis he requires them. If he requires them for the general crisis which exists in East-West relations, in B.A.O.R. and in Europe in general, the Bill does not meet or solve the problem. Hon. Members with considerable experience of these matters, on both sides of the Committee, who dislike this nasty little Bill intensely do so mostly because it does not meet the purposes which the Minister claims it is intended to cover. I should have thought that the Amendment calls for a very simple procedure.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend will be aware that even that is not the whole point. If there is a genuine crisis in Berlin that is so serious that we need more troops, is it not right that the Government should spell out that crisis in such a way that it convinces the nation that conscription is necessary? Would not that be better than applying their present argument which attempts to justify the retaining of merely a handful of men? Either we have a crisis which needs a lot of soldiers or we do not have a crisis and we do not need that great number of soldiers.

Mr. Marsh: The purpose of the Amendment is precisely because many of my hon. Friends, and a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that the Bill is designed merely to cover up Government incompetence in the Ministry of Defence and not to meet a specific crisis which now exists. If a crisis exists now and if Britain is faced with a serious crisis necessitating the deprivation of a number of young men of their liberties, 15,000 men next year in B.A.O.R. will not solve it.
The Minister is, therefore, producing a Bill which appears on the face of it not to meet a situation or crisis at the moment but to cover a crisis which might arise at some time in the future.

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Might I remind the hon. Member that we are discussing an Amendment and not the Bill as a whole?

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir Gordon—and you must be fed up with points of order. With respect, earlier the Minister, quite rightly in order to explain why he was rejecting the Amendment, went quite wide and brought in the orbit of the Clause as a whole and, subsequently, other speeches were allowed to combat that. I put that to you, Sir Gordon, because you were not in the Chair at that time.

The Chairman: Naturally a certain amount of latitude is allowed, but I should be obliged if hon. Members would confine their remarks to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Marsh: I certainly would not want to stray from the Amendment. I am merely pointing out that if there is a crisis at the moment which can be met by the Bill the Minister is correct on the points he has made. But if such a crisis does not exist now, but the Bill exists in order to meet a crisis which may or may not arise at some unspecified date in the future, the Amendment—which calls for a debate to take place in the House on any action the Minister is to take at such a time to meet such a crisis—seems perfectly reasonable.
If the crisis is current now and the Government wish to hold on to 15,000 men next year to avoid this country being faced with a serious threat, then obviously there is no need for the Amendment. I should have thought that if that was the case we should be having not this Bill but one calling for general conscription. The whole point of my argument is that we are being asked to bring into being a Measure for indiscriminate conscription which will have no effect.

The Chairman: I am sorry to have to remind the hon. Member again that he is getting out of order.

Mr. Marsh: I submit, Sir Gordon, that when the Minister intervened recently he rose to assure hon. Members that the purpose of the Bill—and the reason why he could not accept the Amendment—was that he might need to

recall men in a period of rapidly increasing tension. I am suggesting that if this Measure meets an existing period of tension and that 15,000 men next year will meet that current problem, the Minister has made his case. He is therefore, perfectly justified in rejecting the Amendment. But if the period of crisis is not with us now, but might arise at some unspecified time in the future, the case for the Amendment is made because it is at such a time that Parliament would like to discuss the measures which the Minister would like to introduce. I should have thought it essential that Parliament should have an opportunity, on such an occasion, to discuss exactly what the Minister is doing.
Why should there be any opposition to the Amendment? A series of reasons have been offered, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said earlier that if Parliament met specially to discuss this selective call-up it would add to the international tension.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I was making the point that anxiety might be caused throughout the Army because no one would know who was being called up.

Mr. Marsh: I find that one even more difficult to understand than the hon. Gentleman's previous remarks. Thinking back to the time when I was called up, I perhaps wish that I had shown the sort of equanimity which the hon. Gentleman appears to believe will be shown by a conscript in B.A.O.R. at the present time who is not anxious and whose family is not anxious for him to remain there.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I think my right hon. Friend cleared up that point earlier when he went into the question of our being informed in advance of legislation.

Mr. Marsh: One of the arguments against the Amendment is that we should keep this sort of thing quiet, just between ourselves, because we do not want Parliament to meet to discuss the matter. The Minister has said that he might want to recall these men in a period of rapidly increasing tension when Parliament was not in session. If this House gets into the position where a Minister can recall thousands of men to the Colours without Parliament being


recalled to discuss the matter, I do not know what will be the result. Are we really expected to believe that only at the end of the Summer Recess are we to hear, or read, that the Minister has done this off his own bat? I am increasingly amazed at this Government as we hear more of their arguments against what would appear to be a perfectly reasoned Amendment. In fact, one becomes increasingly more amazed at this Government—full stop.
Again, I was surprised when the Minister, in attempting to justify the application of this Measure to National Service men without Parliament having the opportunity of debating it beforehand on a special occasion, used an argument which, for precisely the same reason, I should have thought would lead to the conclusion that it should not apply to National Service men. The Regular is a volunteer who has consciously taken a decision to commit himself to military service. The conscript is a man who, to everyone's regret, has been called into the Army without any choice at all. When the Minister has to make the choice, he chooses the conscript to do the additional service, in spite of the fact that he is a man who never wanted to do it in the first place, rather than the Regular who has consciously and willingly decided to undertake a military engagement for a period of years.
The right hon. Gentleman chooses to extend the military service of people who have already undertaken a burden which they did not want, which they did not undertake for its career prospects, which they did not undertake because of the financial emoluments and advantages held out to them by the War Office, which they did not undertake because they were attracted by glossy advertisements in magazines, but which they did undertake solely as an enforced contribution for them—quite rightly, as persons within a democratic society—in the service of their country. I should have thought that it was intolerable and likely to arouse very little sympathy indeed that the Minister should try to justify extending the contribution which those men have made without having to justify to the House at the particular time whether their service should be extended or not.
We are asking for something very simple. The debate and discussion we have had on this Measure so far are insufficient. The fact that we have had a Second Reading debate does not meet the point precisely because we on this side of the Committee, and a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, believe that the Bill is not a Bill to meet the existing crisis at the present time but it is, in fact, to meet a crisis which has taken the Government by surprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been drawing attention to that crisis ever since I have been in the House. I can speak for only the past two years, but that surely should have been time enough for the Government to have some idea that events would work out in this way. This is, in fact, a shabby attempt by the Government to duck out of the political difficulties into which they have put themselves, regardless of the hardship which their action imposes upon people who have already made their contribution in the service of the country.
If the Minister wants the men to meet any particular crisis, the House and the British people will give him authority, as they have given Ministers authority in the past. What the House and the country want is the Minister's evidence that the crisis exists at the time. He has made out no case that this Measure is necessary to meet such a crisis. He has given no reasons justifying it at the present time. The least he should agree to do is to say that, when he wants the men and has to ask for them, he will come to the House and ask the House to consider whether a serious situation then exists to justify their recall.
It is not just a matter of individual hardship. Hon. Members have referred to the individual cases about which they are hearing through their constituency post-bags. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said that the fact that Jimmy Smith would lose his apprenticeship or job in industry, or the fact that he had a wife and three children, would enable us to discuss the problem at Question Time. That is not enough. What the House and the country will wish to consider at the time is the effect which such a move might have on the individual, the events which have led to it and the causes in the Government's handling of our


defence affairs. It will wish to consider also the far-reaching effect of these things on the nation's economy.
I support the Amendments because I regard them as the only safeguard at this stage to ensure that the House will have an opportunity of considering those matters. I think it is essential that we should bring every effort to bear on ensuring that people generally understand that what they are being asked to do and what their sons are being asked to do under this Bill—is not to meet a military crisis but to pay the price of bungling incompetence in the Ministry of Defence and this Tory Government as a whole.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Paget: This group of Amendments covers a fairly narrow point on which we have had quite a wide debate. I shall stray from the narrow scope of the Amendment only a little in answer to a point which was discussed at some length by the Secretary of State, namely, the crisis which has made all this necessary.
The argument all depends upon what one means by the word "crisis". If one means a crisis in our foreign affairs, it is nonsense, of course. This is the first time since the war when we have had no state of emergency existing anywhere within our own Commonwealth. It is the first time since the war when we have had nobody anywhere serving on active service. In Germany we are doing little more than half what we are obligated to do by treaty and what we were obligated to do by treaty in 1957 when the original policy was adopted.
On the other hand, if one means "crisis" in the sense in which the word is used by doctors, when someone has taken an infection or taken poison and at a certain point the consequences of the infection or poison reach the point of disaster, it may well be that we have a crisis on our hands. But it is a crisis which has arisen with a sense of inevitability, not as a result of anything unforeseen but with everything foreseen as a result of the Government's own policy. That is the only form of crisis with which we are dealing.
I turn now to the narrow meaning of the Amendment. It is strictly a procedural Amendment and nothing else. The

Minister wants two kinds of power. Both are contingent powers. He wants neither immediately. Under Clause 1, he wants a contingent power which he expects he will probably need in April. He says that, if he were surprised by something unforeseeable, he might need it before April. On the other hand, he has led us to hope that if he were surprised by a détente which made things easier, he would not need it at all. That is the position with regard to retention.
It is at least very usual for a Minister who comes to the House to ask for a contingent power which he may or may not want to say, "If I do want it, I will ask for an Order to bring it into operation". That is both a usual and very convenient method.
If that is the case under Clause 1, how much more is it the case under Clause 2? Under Clause 2, the contingent power for which the right hon. Gentleman asks is not required until the end of 1963, and even then he has said that he will be very disappointed—disappointed with his "Ever-readies"—if that power is needed at all. If it is needed, surely the convenient method, the tidy method and the best method is to do it by Order. It is certainly a very usual way to do it.
What are the reasons put against doing it by Order? The first is that, if we needed this power, it might be because of a tricky situation in Europe and that an Order might cause alarm and despondency either within the Armed Forces, or among our allies or the people of Europe, or among our enemies, and it might make them nervous, like orders for mobilisation. On examination, that reason does not stand up for a moment. The fact that the matter was done by Order would not bring about any more publicity. Suppose that it were done by individual notice. Everyone gets the notice and everyone starts moaning about the notice. The newspapers pick up the story and those who get the notice write to their Members of Parliament. Questions are tabled in Parliament. Every criticism is directed at the Government before they have had a chance to reply.
The matter does not get any less publicity if it is done in the way proposed by the Government. There is only publicity in the worst possible form. Surely if the Government want the Bill to be a success and the things that they


do to be a success—and here we are dealing with a matter in which morale is all important—the important thing is that the Government should have the opportunity to be able to tell the people straight away why they want it, and then they will get the response. Surely the laying of an Order which gives the Government the opportunity to explain publicly why they want the Bill is the best way from the Government's point of view to get their case in first and to get it over to the people instead of having it disseminated and built up into a moan, which is the form that the publicity takes. What could be more demoralising?
The second reason, which, again, I do not think stands up for a moment is that it is necessary to give people warning for their own convenience.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has considered this aspect of the matter. Suppose that we needed only 10,000 under Clause 2. By that time there would be about 100,000 National Service men left in that category. Surely, if all that the Secretary of State for War can do under the Order is to say that be wants 10,000 men, we at once put the wind up the other 90,000.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Gentleman really imagine that, if 10,000 men were called up, that would remain an un-worrying and unruffling secret from the other 90,000?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: No. I am not trying to make a party point here. If we are to do it by the personal approach of a separate message to every man, surely that is less likely to put the wind up the ones who do not get the message.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, I should have thought that exactly the opposite was the case. Consider the situation. "Joe" gets a call-up notice. The news goes round the factory, the pubs, the clubs and the whole town. Everyone says, "Good lord, recall notice is coming. What will happen?" If the Secretary of State comes here and lays an Order and says, "I am going to recall a certain number of men. The recall notices are in the post and will be received tomorrow morning. No one who does no: receive it need worry, because

I am calling up only these men", what better opportunity would the right hon. Gentleman have for putting his case and for justifying it and for setting the limits? I cannot think of a more convenient or better way to do it.
As the Secretary of State said, warning is needed. We shall have immediately to start giving warning to the people whom we expect—we are not certain about it—to retain. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself provided the answer to that. He said, "I am already doing it before I have the Bill". He can equally do it before he has the order. There would be no difficulty in saying, "The probability is that we shall have to bring this measure into operation by 1st April, and you are one of the people we shall have to retain. You had better make your arrangements". We cannot do more than that anyway, because, unless it is sheer bluff when the right hon. Gentleman says, "If things turn very much for the better, I would not even need it in April", it must remain contingent. Whether the right hon. Gentleman has the Bill or not, he is giving a warning which he hopes will not materialise. The position about warning is the same whether we adopt the Government's procedure or not. As I have said, whatever way the matter is dealt with will not affect the volume of publicity, but it is possible to get the publicity into a much better and realistic form, with the Government having the first word in saying what they want.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, it is a very ancient principle of the House of Commons that Parliament controls the numbers in the Armed Forces. We have always sought to stick to that as closely as possible. We have machinery that keeps in Parliament's hands as effectively as possible control of the numbers in the Armed Forces. For that constitutional reason, we should adopt the method that we suggest unless there is a really conclusive reason of convenience against it. The Government have not produced the slightest reason of convenience against it. Publicity has broken down and warning has broken down. Therefore, when there is no case in convenience, in need or in urgency, would it be right for Parliament to surrender its control of the numbers in the Forces,


which is amongst its most fundamental ancient and important constitutional rights.
8.0 p.m.
I certainly suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although I do not think that he needs much suggestion from me, should force the Amendment to a Division and I would ask all my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of it. We have had an extremely good debate and whilst, obviously, the Committee would be interested in hearing anything which my hon. Friend wished to say in winding up, this is a Bill which, much as we dislike it, we are not trying to obstruct in any kind of way. There are a large number of highly important Amendments which require consideration and adequate discussion. I hope that the Government will change their minds and accept the Amendment, which would add to the convenience of the working of the Bill. It is a small one, a procedural one and, I believe, a right one.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) winds up, as he is entitled to do, may we not appeal to the Secretary of State to reply to the powerful speeches which have been made by the last five or six speakers from this side of the Committee, and particularly the speech to which we have just listened from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) from the Front Bench? The Secretary of State made a preliminary but what appeared to be a superficial case for resisting the Amendments, since when the searching light of criticism has been cast upon his attitude. I hope that if I may give him a few moments of reflection, he will consider that the Committee is entitled to his reply to the case which my hon. Friends have put.
We know that the Executive and the bureaucracy always have a natural resistance to Parliamentary scrutiny. The first point that is felt widely, not only on this side of the Committee, is that, as one hon. Member opposite said, the Bill is admitted to be grossly unfair. That is indisputable. This Measure victimises a small number of men who are, in a sense, being double-crossed.
They were taken on for two years' conscription but are to be made liable to be held on to for a further period at the will of the Government.
It is agreed on both sides that this is a selective injustice that is being imposed. Some argue that it is necessary and inevitable in the circumstances of the case, but simply because it is admitted to be grossly unfair to a small number of citizens who happen to be National Service men or on the Reserve emphasises our duty to ensure the maximum Parliamentary scrutiny of the way in which the Minister uses his powers under this Measure.
The second point to which, I hope, the Secretary of State will direct his attention—I did not think he was being deliberately ambiguous or indulging in duplicity in his speech—is why this Measure is needed at all and why he requires a blank cheque. Why should the Secretary of State have a blank cheque? Why should he not have to make orders that would be the subject of discussion in the House of Commons? Part of the Minister's speech tried to suggest that tension in international affairs and in Europe was such an emergency operation that it justified the Minister's having a blank cheque to do what he liked under the powers given by Parliament in the Bill. None of his hon. Friends has tried to justify that view. Nobody accepts it, because we all know that in relaxing international tension the Bill is neither here not there. Had it been the result of international tension, much greater powers would have been taken. Much larger measures would have been brought forward by the Government, Parliament would have been recalled in the middle of the summer and then, had the situation justified it, we should have been only too willing to give Ministers a blank cheque.
The crisis, from which arises these two Clauses which we are trying to amend, is the crisis in Government policy because of the difficulty in reconciling the commitments which the Government have undertaken in Europe and the failure of their recruiting policy to match up to them. The Minister has failed so far to admit that.
We want to see the Secretary of State at the Box coming clean about the reasons for the Bill. This Measure


has to be produced because the Government have undertaken certain commitments for military forces. The Government decided to abolish conscription and their gamble in their recruiting policy has not matched the commitments which they have undertaken.

The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with the Amendments and not the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. In one part of the debate, Sir Gordon, your predecessor gave a Ruling which seemed to me to enable an hon. Member to go very wide. I rose on a point of order and asked the occupant of the Chair whether that did not mean that the debate was going wide, but no attempt was made to restrict the hon. Member concerned in the width in which he dealt with this issue.

The Chairman: I cannot discuss what happened when I was not in the Chair. My remark was that we are dealing with Amendments and not with the Bill. I should have thought that that was a perfectly accurate remark.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. The point which I am putting, Sir Gordon, is that if previous speakers have been able to range over a wide field, it is unfair—

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. I cannot discuss what happened earlier when I was not here.

Mr. Swingler: The only reason why I bring the point forward, because the Government benches have not yet admitted the reason for the crisis to which they refer when they argue in favour of the Bill and, moreover, they argue against these Amendments and, therefore, they are in favour of Ministers having a blank cheque in applying the powers of the Bill, is that if it is true that these powers are needed because of Ministerial incompetence or miscalculation, if the analysis is correct that the reason for this makeshift policy is because the Government have miscalculated in their recruiting policy, or, to put it the other way round, that the Government have taken on too many commitments in Europe, that seems to me to be an overwhelming argument for subjecting this Measure to Parlia-

mentary scrutiny in detail. It makes a great deal of difference.
If it was due to some enormous international crisis, that could be a reason for saying that the Minister should be voted a blank cheque because emergency action has to be taken. If, however, the nature of the crisis is the incompetence of the Minister in failing to recruit sufficient Regular forces or his miscalculation of the relation between those forces and commitments abroad, that is why the Minister at every stage should be forced to justify his Measure to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will now reply to the searching and serious criticisms which have been made in the course of this discussion.

Viscount Lambton: I support the request that the Minister should say a word or two. These Amendments give him a fortunate opportunity of saying that the Bill is a form of selective conscription. Will he please say whether it is? If he does not call it selective conscription, will he please say how he would define it?

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. Members who added their names to the Amendment and for the support we have had from all quarters of the Committee. I shall shortly accept the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in view of the very important Amendments on the Order Paper still to be dealt with, and ask my hon. Friends now to come to a decision. It seems to me the right and proper thing to do. The debate has been worthwhile and it has elicited a number of points.
The first point was the admission that what the Government wanted was a blank cheque and what anyone who has pinched somebody else's chequebook wants is that somebody else shall honour it. This was an admission from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) who has held high office in the party opposite. Then we had the admission of the Secretary of State for War. He made a point of some substance against me when he said that on Clause 1 he would be in grave administrative difficulty if he were called upon to present an Order


to the House—because he would not have the time.
This is a final admission of failure on a Measure, the influence of which goes to every home in the country and every regiment in the British Isles. The Secretary of State for War says, "We have left this so long that I cannot even carry out for administrative reasons the undertakings which I gave on Second Reading. Therefore I cannot meet your arguments". It is a powerful argument against me, but it seems to me a tremendous admission of failure on the part of the Government.
Then, later, the right hon. Gentleman said, "On Clause 2 I shall be in difficulties if I am required to come to the House, perhaps in a state of emergency." It is not until 1963 that he even contemplates using these powers. Is he then saying that again in 1963 he will wait once more until after 12 o'clock before he takes action? That is the implication of what he says. He says in effect, "Because we know that the next step will be even more unpopular, like Mr. Micawber we shall hope that something will turn up and then we shall come along with a stopgap Measure and say that we cannot do anything but what we are now doing because we have left it too late." I hope that, for that reason if for no other, hon. Members opposite will join with us in going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I wish to raise a point on the words "equivalent service" in the Clause. As I see it, the Bill means that men who are serving at present as National Service men, and some who have served as National Service men, will be compelled to serve for a further six months' period. On the face of it, it would appear that the total of their service will be 30 months, but already many National Service men have been in the Army for a period considerably exceeding the two years provided by law.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment. The Question is—

Mr. Mellish: No.

Mr. Winterbottom: I have to apologise, Sir Gordon. I agree that I have not been in the Chamber during the whole of

the debate. I came in at the first possible opportunity and I thought that we were debating Clause 1. I want to make quite clear that we should have a statement from the Secretary of State for War putting beyond shadow of doubt what is meant by "equivalent service".

The Chairman: I am sorry, but this does not arise on the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Winterbottom: With great respect, Sir Gordon, I am saying that part of the argument for suggesting that the whole of this matter should be taken on the Floor of the House is contained in Clause 1, and in that Clause the words "equivalent service" occur.

Mr. Paget: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The point which he is raising will come in exactly on the next Amendment.

Mr. Winterbottom: I thank my hon. and learned Friend and I hope, Sir Gordon, that I shall have the pleasure of being called by you on the next occasion.

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Mellish: Before we go further, Sir Gordon, I should like to go back to that relevant point which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) has just made. He made the fair point that there are some National Service men who have done more than two years' service and therefore it makes it all the more necessary that if under the Clause some of these boys are to be asked to serve a further six months the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should be passed by the Committee to ensure that the injustice already done to some of these boys should not continue to be done for a further six months. This, therefore, adds weight to the argument that we should have the right in this Chamber to decide whether these people should be called up for an extra six months.
I should like to make an appeal to the Secretary of State. He was asked a question by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) the answer to which would help us to complete discussion on the Bill and the various Amendments associated with it. Is it now agreed, by the


Secretary of State that we are discussing selective conscription? Can we have some statement from the Minister? We shall get into an awful tangle later on if we cannot have that made clear as soon as maybe. It is relevant to the Amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer?

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Mellish: With respect, Sir Gordon, all we are asking is that a certain Order when made shall be debated by the House. There is some disagreement on whether we are talking about a form of selective conscription or not. I say that we are. I join with the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. We are entitled to have this this point clarified. When we are debating matters in this Chamber we should be clear—

Sir Cyril Osborne: How does this arise on the Amendment?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to coloured workers, though he is not any good on that subject either. He should not talk about soldiers, although he would be the first to have coloured men in the Army.
Will the Minister now give an answer on what will be a very important matter? If he has any sense of the Committee he will answer. He had better ask the Leader of the House about this. He knows what happened yesterday and how tempers rose—

Mr. John Hall: Would not this point be better raise on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill? The hon. Member might then have a better opportunity of pressing a matter in which both he and I are interested.

Mr. Mellish: That is the point. Discussion on Clause stand part is reached after all the proposed Amendments to

the Clause have been disposed of. If we are to have an intelligent discussion on the Amendments it is right that the point put by the noble Lord should be answered so that we know where we stand. There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State replying to the noble Lord. The trouble is that we have got to the point when we think that the Committee stage is like Second Reading, with one speech only for the Minister.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up this question about selective conscription? If we are to have this matter debated on the Floor of the House in Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman please now get up and tell us about selective conscription? It is monstrous that apparently he will not do so.

Viscount Lambton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be fair to presume, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not say it, that we are discussing some form of selective conscription.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) was not here when I made my speech earlier. When he and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) read HANSARD tomorrow they will see that there is no duplicity about this. I join with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in suggesting that we now decide on this Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: Is it selective conscription? Can we have an answer? Apparently not. Very well, there are other Amendments to come.

Question put, That "passing" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 135.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[8.21 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Chataway, Christopher


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Clive
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allason, James
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Arbuthnot, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cleaver, Leonard


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cole, Norman


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barter, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cordle, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bryan, Paul
Corfield, F. V.


Bell, Ronald
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Costain, A. P.


Berkeley, Humphry
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Biffen, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver




Cunningham, Knox
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Rawlinson, peter


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Deedes, W. F
Leather, E. H. C.
Rees, Hugh


de Ferranti, Basil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, David


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


du Cann, Edward
Lindsay, Martin
Roots, William


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Russell, Ronald


Elliot, Capt-Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
St. Clair, M.


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longbottom, Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Loveys, Walter H.
Sharples, Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Finlay, Graeme
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gilmour, Sir John
Maitland, Sir John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Goodhart, Philip
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Talbot, John E.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tapsell, Peter


Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Grimson, Sir Robert
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S, L. C.
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Gerald
Turner, Colin


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Michael
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells John (Maidstone)


Hendry, Forbes
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Whitelaw, William


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Partridge, E.



Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Wise, A. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitman, Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Miss Edith
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall
Woollam, John


Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho



James, David
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis
Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
MacMillan, Malcolm(Western Isles)


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles
Mapp, Charles


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Richard


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Blyton, William
Grimond, J.
Mellish, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce


Bowles, Frank
Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward J.


Boyden, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mitchison, G. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holt, Arthur
Moody, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, John


Collick, Percy
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Frederick


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.


Darling, George
Janner Sir Barnett
Padley, W. E.


Deer, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.


Dempsey, James

Parker, John


Diamond, John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dodds, Norman
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Frederick


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
King, Dr. Horace
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Evans, Albert
Ledger, Ron
Randall, Harry


Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Redhead, E. C.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reid, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Reynolds, G. W.


Forman, J. C
McCann, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


George,Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
McInnes, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Ginsburg, David
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William







Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Swingler, Stephen
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Short, Edward
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Small, William
Thornton, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, William
Woof, Robert


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Weitzman, David
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Steele, Thomas
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Stones, William
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Lawson.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "may" to insert:
provided there is no person of similar qualifications available to be called out under section three of this Act".

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, at end add:
(4) No person shall be recalled under section two of this Act whilst there is a person of similar qualifications available to be called out under section three of this Act.
However, that Amendment will not be called for a Division and any Division will take place only on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).

Mr. Mayhew: We have had a most interesting and useful discussion on the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who is to be congratulated on moving an Amendment which apparently covered only a narrow issue but which enabled speeches which were interesting and comprehensive to be made.
We now turn to a more substantial Amendment which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, although I admit that it profoundly changes the whole nature of the Bill. The Amendment raises the whole question of the relationship of different parts of the Bill to each other, and we shall ask the Minister for a good deal of clarification. The simple point is that the Minister should not have power to conscript men under Clause 1 or Clause 2 while volunteers of similar qualifications are available under the "Ever-ready" scheme in Clause 3. If the Minister means what he has said about preferring a voluntary system and hoping for success for the "Ever-ready" scheme, these are Amendments which he can accept. So far, however, his intentions about the

"Ever-ready" scheme have not been altogether clear.
We know that he wants those affected by Clause 2 to be able to volunteer for the "Ever-ready" scheme. We know that he wants those National Service men on part-time service to be able to volunteer for the "Ever-ready" reserve. He said so on Second Reading. On the other hand, he prohibits those covered by Clause 1 from volunteering for the Emergency Reserve.
I would like the Committee to consider the implications of the fact that in certain circumstances the Minister would wish to conscript men under Clause I and Clause 2 even though similarly qualified men were available under Clause 3. That is the position he has to defend if he resists the Amendments. I ask hon. Members to imagine that the Emergency Reserve is a great success, the "Ever-ready" scheme is a great success and that volunteers come forward in considerable numbers. There is a big reserve of people qualified to volunteer for the new reserve. First, there are about 100,000 volunteer members of the Territorial Army. Under Clause 3, all of those can apply to become "Ever-readies." In addition, there are 200,000 part-time National Service men who can volunteer for the new reserve. In a year's time there will be fewer—the Minister says that about 100,000 National Service men will be able to volunteer—but today there are 300,000 possible volunteers. At the end of next year there will be 200,000 possible volunteers, and probably in the middle of the year about 250,000 possible volunteers.
Now suppose that the appeal for volunteers is successful. Surely, as we have argued already, it may make totally unnecessary the conscription of men either under Clause 1 or under Clause 2? Many of these volunteers will, after all, be equally. well trained. A high proportion of these volunteers under the "Ever-ready" scheme, both in the middle, and


at the end, of next year will be at least as well trained as the men whom the Minister proposes to conscript under Clause 1 and Clause 2.
The Minister cannot say that his preference for conscription under Clause 1 and Clause 2 is based on the fact that these men are trained, because, on the assumptions that I am making a proportion of the "Ever-ready" volunteers will have lone their National Service and be equally well trained. Indeed, on my assumption a high proportion of these volunteers in the Reserve will be better qualified. They will have been selected under the provisions of the "Ever-ready" scheme from a number of volunteers, and for that reason we can assume that their standard as soldiers will, on the whole, be higher than the standard of those whom the Minister demands power to conscript under Clause 1 and Clause 2. Therefore, there are two solid reasons for preferring to take his men from the "Ever-ready" scheme voluntarily, instead of conscripting them.
Here are two further reasons for pressing the Minister to do this. First, because the men he will be accepting under the "Ever-ready" scheme, will not, by definition, be hardship cases. They will be volunteers, and we have been told by the Secretary of State for War that it is his aim to avoid as much as possible inevitable hardship involved in the application of this Bill. We shall be able to deal with this problem in a number of subsequent Amendments. I make this third point in favour of accepting these volunteers, that there will be no hardship involved, unlike in the case of conscripts.
Finally, we shall be able to get men through the "Ever-ready" scheme who will probably not be obsessed by a powerful and justifiable sense of grievance about the way they have been brought into the Army, because, as we on this side of the Committee have said time and again, one enormous disadvantage, or drawback, of Clause 1 and Clause 2 is that a small number of men who are retained in this way, or called back in this way, will, inevitably, have a powerful and well-justified sense of grievance, and a handful of these men in a unit of volunteers may make a great deal of difference.
I speak from personal experience. During the war I had the experience of serving both in a completely voluntary unit and in an almost wholly conscript unit. There is undoubtedly a tremendous difference in spirit, particularly where a group of volunteer soldiers is mixed with a small nucleus of conscripts. That is a profoundly unhappy situation, and one which this Bill will greatly increase.
For these four reasons I ask the Minister to consider the advantages of taking men from the "Ever-ready" pool instead of taking them under Clause 1 or Clause 2. First, no hardship is involved. Secondly, because the men, being volunteers, have no sense of grievance. Thirdly, because he will be able to choose the National Service men of equally good training, and, fourthly, because they will be better qualified and of a higher standard than the men he proposes to conscript under Clause l and Clause 2.
I should have thought that that was a fairly self-evident fact, and all that our Amendment says is that while there are enough volunteers of similar qualifications the Minister shall not be allowed to conscript men under Clause 1 and Clause 2.
I should have thought that the Minister might find this acceptable. I cannot see any reason why he should not. He has often told us that he believes in the voluntary system, and he has talked in the same way as I am talking about the disadvantage of conscript soldiers. He has made elaborate speeches about his worries on the score of hardship, about which we shall press him later, and he has already said that he hopes to get enough Clause 2 conscript volunteers to avoid conscription.
I should like to quote his remarks on this point. In the Second Reading debate he said:
It is possible that we shall never have to operate this second measure"—
that is, the Clause 2 scheme—
which is solely designed as an insurance against national need during the period of transition from conscription while the Regular Army will be at low strength. I have good reason for saying this, because of the provisions of Clause 3, which is designed to create a new form of volunteer Reserve within the Territorial Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 51.]


The "Ever-ready" scheme is a long term plan, and so far as the scheme meets with success it will obviously help to reduce the possible need to recall part-time National Service men, because this voluntary force would be called upon first. That is the Minister's position. We ask him to go a little further in a totally logical direction and to say that he will not conscript men when volunteers are available.
I am not sure what his objections are. In practice, he may say, "I shall not have in the 'Ever-ready' reserve men of similar qualifications." On the contrary, if the scheme is any success I think that he will have a large number of men with similar or better qualifications than he will get under Clauses 1 and 2. But if he does not get enough men with similar qualifications the Amendment in no way ties his hands. We are concerned only that he should be impelled to make sure that no volunteers are available first.
He may say that the training of the "Ever-ready" reserve will not be good enough. As I have already said, many will he National Service men, and will be well-trained. That does not mean that hon. Members on this side are satisfied with the training likely to be given to the volunteers in the "Ever-ready" scheme. We feel that there is a strong case for the Minister's looking into the possibility of special courses of training for volunteers in that scheme. But even as it is, on the assumptions that I am making there should be a sufficient number of former National Service men, part time—if the scheme works at all—to provide the men he needs.
He said that he will give priority to volunteers, and I accept that. He is going to give them priority over the Clause 2 men. But I want to tie him down a little. It is much easier for him to take a man under Clause 2 than under the "Ever-ready" scheme. To begin with, it is much cheaper. If he takes a man under Clause 2, all he has to pay him is a bounty of £20, but if he accepts a volunteer under the "Ever-ready" scheme the figure is £150 a year for the volunteer's making himself available, and a bounty of £50. There is a considerable financial inducement for the Government to conscript men under Clause 2—let alone under Clause 1, in

respect of which there is no bounty—rather than to take volunteers under Clause 3.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Getting men on the cheap.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, getting the men on the cheap. They can get soldiers on the cheap if they conscript them under Clauses 1 and 2.
This suggests that the bounties given to men under Clauses 1 and 2 are wholly inadequate. There is a £20 bonus under Clause 2, and no bonus at all under Clause 1. One would have thought that a bonus at least equivalent to what the volunteer would get would be reasonable. Why should there not be a bonus of £125 both for the Clause 1 and Clause 2 conscripts, to correspond roughly with the emoluments given to volunteers under Clause 3.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: Is that really quite fair? It seems to me that a National Service man who is retained in the Army under Clause 1 will immediately get an increase in his pay which will be made up to Regular rates. In itself that is some compensation and—

Mr. E. G. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "compensation"? It is not compensation.

Mr. John Hall: —he also, as I understand it, gets the highest rate of marriage allowance.

Mr. Mayhew: As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), it is not compensation to be paid a higher wage for a job which one does not want to do.
Here the point is—this runs through a lot of what the Secretary of State has been telling us about the Bill—that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind that these men referred to in Clause 1 and, to some extent, in Clause 2, are already soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman thinks of them as already being his bodies. During the Second Reading debate when we talked about the procedure for appeal against this extra six months, the Minister said that they would continue with the old arrangements that were already in existence for


compassionate release. There will be Amendments moved later on that point.
The Secretary of State has in mind that these are men who belong to him and that if they wish to be released on grounds of hardship, they should apply for a release, and they must apply in the ordinary way for compassionate release. That is a totally wrong way to look at it. These men are not the Secretary of State's bodies. They are men whom the Secretary of State will call up. They are not asking for release. The Secretary of State is asking to vary a contract so that they will serve another six months after a period of two years. To go on for another six months a man needs to be compensated much more than by the wages of a Regular soldier. He needs to be compensated for all the arrangements he has made in his private life; for the arrangements he has made in respect of a job; for the home life that will be lost and for not being in Britain when he wanted to be. Compensation for these men should go far beyond the amount of pay given to a Regular soldier. The Regular soldier volunteered for the job. These men did not volunteer and they deserve far better than is provided for the Regular soldier.
These men deserve far better treatment than the National Service man who stood his chance like everybody else and was conscripted at the right age like everybody else. But these men will have done their National Service. Already they will have served a longer period of National Service than anyone else in the Western countries and so they deserve more consideration than the Regular soldier or the National Service man.

Mr. John Hall: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was responsible for getting back National Service men and Regulars to meet what was an acknowledged emergency, the right hon. Gentleman or the Socialist Government of the time gave to the National Service man the kind of bonus which the hon. Gentleman is talking about now? In fact, was their pay increased to Regular rates?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot recall the precise arrangements made by my right

hon. Friend, but I would certainly say that when the Secretary of State has produced a contract which admittedly is embodied on the Statute Book, for a period of two years, and then breaks the contract to make the period two-and-a-half years, contrary to the wishes of the man concerned, serious compensation should be paid to the man for that loss. I am certain that is right.
I have wandered a little from the point to which I was seeking a reply from the Minister, the simple point why he should conscript men against their will when similar volunteers are available to him? If we do not tie down the right hon. Gentleman by means of this Amendment he will attempt to do that because it is cheaper for him to conscript men under the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 and also because it is more convenient. If we are to judge whether to retain a man or to call him up on the basis of his personal position and hardship it is a much more burdensome business administratively than simply to take the men required for military reasons.
The Minister said on Second Reading that he proposed that almost all the men in B.A.O.R. who would be affected should be retained under Clause 1 in April. This means that he will retain men under Clauses 1 and 2 not in accordance with their own personal individual positions. The right hon. Gentleman does not mind if they are married men with children, or if they are single, or if they have financial responsibilities. What matters to him is where they are posted. That is his criterion for the retention of these men.
We on this side say that we can mitigate the injustice of this Measure, bad as it is, by insisting that men are not retained if they have personal hardship grounds for exemption. This goes against the convenience of the War Office planners and of the Minister. It is easier and cheaper for him to conscript under Clauses 1 and 2. Therefore, we seek to tie his hands by the Amendment.
I do not know what the Minister's grounds will be for resisting the Amendment or even if he will resist it. I shall wait to hear what he proposes to do. I hope that he will not say, "I must keep my powers to conscript under Clause 2,


because while I have powers to conscript under Clause 2 all the National Service men who may be affected will volunteer for the ' Ever-ready' scheme". There was a hint of that in his Second Reading speech. His argument is that he can persuade volunteers into the "Ever-ready" scheme by threatening them with conscription under Clause 2.
This is a funny kind of volunteering. It is a typical army volunteering. Hon. Members know the story—"I want volunteers for the cookhouse—you, you, and you". That is an old Army method of volunteering. Is the Minister insisting on his powers under Clause 2 with the fact in mind that this will encourage those who may be affected to volunteer instead under the "Ever-ready" scheme? The kind of volunteer he will then get for the "Ever-ready" scheme will not be a genuine volunteer. It will spoil the whole conception of the Reserve and he will be accepting as volunteers those who are being pressured by him to volunteer.
I hope that I have made the meaning of these Amendment clear to the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me in making this simple point clear to the Minister. If he believes in a voluntary system, this is his chance to show that he means it. He should simply say to the Committee, "I agree. If I can get these men by voluntary methods under the Reserve I will not conscript them under Clauses 1 and 2".

Sir F. Maclean: I have no doubt that, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said, my right hon. Friend would accept the Amendment if he possibly could. I take this sign of kindred spirit as an indication of the unholy alliance which has always existed on all these questions between the two Front Benches. The trouble is that my righthon. Friend will not be able to manage simply on the men called up under Clause 3. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was optimistic. One thing which he did not make at all clear is what period he is thinking of. This situation will arise all too soon anyway when my right hon. Friend will be exclusively dependent on the "Ever-readies".

Mr. Mayhew: I see no reason why, if this scheme is to work, it should not be working by April or May of next year.

The Minister has already said that he will not hold anyone back under Clause 1 and Clause 2 before April of next year.

Sir F. Maclean: After April of next year, the period for which he will be able to retain men in the army under Clause 1 will amount to a very few months and will not last long. Under Clause 2, he will be able to retain men until the summer of 1966, and after that, he will be entirely dependent on the "Ever-readies", which ought to suit the hon. Gentleman. It is a nice idea to have "Ever-readies", but even if volunteers come forward, and I am sure that we all hope they will, how much use are they likely to be?
At worst, the Army may well find itself dependent upon men who have had one fortnight's camp and a few evening drills, but what use is a man like that likely to be if he is sent for six months, which is a very short period, and has not time to get settled in? He is sent off by himself for a period of six months to a strange unit, because there is no question of these men going by units or sub-units. It will be a single man who has had one fortnight's camp and a few evening drills who is to be sent off to fill a gap in an existing unit. How much use is that likely to be?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at the present time there is a large pool of men who have done their National Service and who are in effect trained soldiers already. One hopes that they will volunteer, but in 1966 my right hon. Friend will get very few indeed, and that is the period I am worried about.

Mr. Frank Allaun: This Bill is an outrage against personal liberty. I believe that not a single conscript should be required to do the extra six months while there is a single "Ever-ready" available. This is an offence against our sense of fair play and justice. It is wrong for the Government to use compulsion when voluntary methods are available to them.
The Government are evidently unaware just how obnoxious this business is. This evening, there have been hon. Members who have defended general conscription, but I agree with the founder-father of the Labour Party—Keir Hardie—who said that conscription is the mark of the slave, and he was


speaking about conscription in war time. How much more intolerable is conscription in peace time.
In some units at this moment, officers are explaining to their men who are likely to be retained, and the indignation and bitterness has been tremendous. I share these men's feelings. The Government say that they are terribly sorry for the National Service men whom they are having to call up for an extra six months, but, nevertheless, they are continuing with that calling up. What hypocrisy. It is like a gang of thugs who waylay an old age pensioner and say that they are terribly sorry for her, but they must take her purse. The Government are saying in the same way to the National Service man that they are terribly sorry for him, but they must take his manpower.
9.0 p.m.
There are 430,000 in the Armed Forces. There has been too much talk of 165,000 and 180,000. The Army has a shrinking number compared with the other two Forces. The total at which the Government are aiming is 430,000 and they think they will get 410,000. If we cannot meet our commitments with 410,000 voluntary men plus the "Ever-readies", we shall have to cut our commitments. If it is asked where we should cut our commitments, the answer will be found in the Second Reading debate—in Hong Kong, Singapore and other parts of the world.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that he had had favourable discussions with the T.U.C. I suggest that although the T.U.C. may have said that it had no objection to the "Ever-readies" the T.U.C. gave no support at all to conscripting men for an extra six months. I should like to know from the Secretary of State exactly what the T.U.C. did view with favour.
If an individual person is unjustly fined or imprisoned there is a tremendous outcry, and rightly so, but here the Government are doing a great injustice, not to an individual, but to perhaps 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 men. This is not a light matter. It is not like a £2 fine, yet we have had debates in this House over the unjust imposition of a £2 fine.
Now we are to compel men to serve an extra six months, taking a large chunk out of their lives.
The defence made by the Minister has always been that of military necessity. I object to this Committee considering only military necessity. Are there not other necessities? Is there not the need of the young wife or mother to have her husband in the home to look after herself and her baby? Is there not a need for a young man to pursue his career without this gratuitous interference. Is there not need in industry for these men? I believe they would be doing a far better job there than in the Forces.
In my constituency I have had a number of cases of men who, because of hardship, have been granted release. I must pay tribute to the Under-Secretary in this respect. All those cases which come to me—and I am sure they come to other hon. Members—have been about National Service men. Volunteers, the Regulars, are less dissatisfied. They have thought these things over before they joined up, but for the poor National Service men this is where the injustice lies: they have no choice. It is unjust to them and not much good to the Army either.
The last batch of National Service men have had an extremely raw deal. It is a matter of whether they were born a week before or after a certain date. I understand that in all these cases a line has to be drawn somewhere, but it seemed to me that this last batch of men might be given a reduced period of service. Instead, the Government say that they are to have an increased period of service. This is indeed a double injustice.
Reverting to the point about interference with careers which will take place unless this Amendment is carried, I wish to read from a letter I received this week from a retired naval lieut.-commander. He writes:
I wonder if you could mention the anxiety of the British Medical Association over the retention of doctors within the National Service? The Association contends that this is going to create hardship for these young doctors, of whom there is already a shortage. The doctors also wonder if the B.M.A. was consulted before the decision was reached to retain doctors in National Service.
That is very relevant to the Amendment. If young doctors want to volunteer for


the Army that is their business, but to conscript even one of them is utterly wrong when "Ever-readies" are available.
Although I once asked the Minister if a National Service man with a wife and child would be exempted, I received no reply. I know from my constituency experience in Salford that tens of thousands of National Service men who are now serving are married and, in many cases, have children. It is entirely wrong—and if the Secretary of State has any fairness in him he will realise that it is wrong—that in 1961, in peace time, a married man with young children should be forced to serve in the Armed Forces.
Some of these married men with children, I believe, are to be asked to serve an additional six months. Surely the least the Minister can do is to exempt them. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is going to do so and I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment. Again I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary, because I know that where exceptional hardship can be proven, compassionate discharge is allowed. But there must be exceptional hardship in all these cases. Discharge should be granted without any further proof. There should, for example, be automatic discharge for any National Service man who has a wife and one or more children.
If that is right, how much stronger is the case for exempting them from a further six months' service? This brings me back to the Amendment, which says that there should be no call up of National Service men while "Ever-readies" are available. The number of married men with children in the last batch to be called up who may have to serve the extra six months will be higher than ever before, for many of these men had completed apprenticeships before going into National Service. Thousands of them will be 23 years old before leaving the Armed Forces. If these men are not to be automatically exempted I maintain that the only alternative is to say that no National Service man should have to serve an additional six months while a single "Ever-ready" is available.

Mr. Profumo: As this is a fairly narrow point we are discussing in these two Amendments it might be convenient if I intervene at this stage to express my view.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) put his finger on the point when he explained that if we made these changes—and if I accepted the Amendment—it would make a profound difference to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) made a point on which I think I should elaborate, because a number of speeches have been made asking me to accept the Amendment in order to avoid special hardship being caused to those who might be held next year in the interests of keeping B.A.O.R. up to strength.
I must point out that, when a similar sort of thing happened under the Labour Government and a lot of National Service men had to be kept, there was no arrangement then for any sort of recompense in the form of a bounty, and in regard to those National Service men who were kept—there must have been many cases like this where there was hardship to be dealt with—there was no question of men coming forward and saying, "You must show why we should be kept on". Exactly the same procedure as we are thinking of now was adopted then, namely, that the hardship cases came up and were reviewed in exactly the same way as for any other person who was a National Service man. That is the way it worked then.

Mr. Winterbottom: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a great difference in the type of conscription, the conscription proposed in his Bill, as compared with the extension of conscription at the time of the Korean war? At the time of which he is speaking there was general conscription. In this case, he is talking about selective conscription.

Mr. Profumo: With respect, it was not general conscription.

Mr. Winterbottom: There was a war.

Mr. Profumo: The point I make is that hardship is hardship whether there is a war or not. The hardship cases


were dealt with then in the way we propose on this occasion. We are not proposing to hold all the National Service men. We shall let out, on grounds of hardship, as many as we can.
There has been some attack on the ground that we ought to recompense these men whom we are keeping on by making some form of bounty. We are doing precisely the same as was done then.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman has ignored the difference between the kind of hardship. There is hardship as a result of outside circumstances like the Korean war, for which the Government were not responsible, and hardship caused by the gross ineptitude of the present Government by the Bill.

Mr. Profumo: I think that you would object, Sir William, if I were to go over all the matters I referred to in my speech at the end of the four hours' debate we had on the previous Amendment when I pointed out quite clearly —the hon. Gentleman will read my speech if he was not, perhaps, able to be here at the time—the reasons why we have had to take powers under the Bill. I am anxious to keep this matter narrow. It ought not to be enlarged.
I turn now to the point at issue. The main objection to the first of these two Amendments is simply that the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve is intended—I have made this plain, too, and the hon. Gentleman stressed it himself —as a long-term concept. It is designed specifically to provide a voluntary force right from the start. Therefore, liability must, I submit, be a liability for a possibility, not a certainty. In other words, when somebody joins up in the "Ever-readies", the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, he takes his bounty and he takes his chance not of the certainty but of the possibility that he might have to be recalled for six months in the particular year for which he takes on. It would be a certainty if, the moment a man was enrolled as an "Ever-ready", he was immediately called up and swapped over for a National Service man serving at the time. That would be quite a different thing.
If the Government had decided to rely on what one might call a voluntary

system of selective service, they would have gone about the Bill in a completely different way. The requirement is for men who are already trained, and we came to the conclusion that the best way of effecting what we needed was to retain men now actually serving. In the circumstances, for the purposes for which we want them, they must be better than any Territorial soldier recalled, however good he may be, because these other people are in their right categories, and many of them are serving in the B.A.O.R.. at the moment.

Mr. Mayhew: Mr. Mayhew rose—

Mr. Profumo: I do not want to detain the Committee. Everyone can speak again. I just want to make my case. I owe it to the Committee to do so, I think.

Mr. Mayhew: To make it perfectly clear, the Secretary of State is saying now that he proposes to accept as a volunteer in the "Ever-ready" scheme a National Service man who is trained and keep him there unused while he conscripts men under Clauses 1 and 2. That is quite clear, is it not? He will keep available in the "Ever-ready" scheme volunteers who are National Service men without calling them up and, at the same time, he will call up compulsorily under Clauses 1 and 2 people of similar qualifications.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I would urge the hon. Gentleman to listen to the whole case. I know that he is very eager to make his point. If when I have finished he has any doubt about the matter, perhaps I can help him further.
The main objection to the first Amendment, which concerns the question of using the "Ever-readies" instead of the men we are retaining, not the recalled men, is that this is a voluntary force that we are seeking to create for the long term. Therefore, it must rest on a liability of a possibility of recall. It would be futile to start a voluntary reserve for people who at the moment that they joined would have to serve. That would be a completely different concept.
Another equally important point is this. The success of this new long-term concept depends, and must depend, very


largely on the co-operation on both sides of industry, whatever we in Parliament do. It was in this context that I mentioned on Second Reading that we had discussions with the T.U.C. and with the representatives of the employers. They were favourable discussions and they were confidential discussions. We found that there was a general feeling of co-operation in trying to make the scheme a success.
In my view, if an employer is asked to accept the possibility of one of his employees being called up for six months during any one year of engagement, that is one matter. But if we ask him to accept the certainty that the moment that one of his employees has joined as an "Ever-ready" he is bound to be called up, because there is a National Service man being retained for whom he must be swapped, that is another matter. Employers will not agree to a form of voluntary service which means that some of their best men are paid £150 and immediately taken from them.
There are two distinct phases in this matter. Clause 1 deals with the retention, which has been done before and is not new, of a certain number of National Service men for a period. During that time, we intend to try to build up a new voluntary force, but it will be really voluntary, men volunteering against the possibility of being recalled later. In my opinion, from the point of view of the volunteers and the employers, we can get this force which we regard as a long-term necessity only if we do it in this way.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but, despite the explanation he has given to the Committee and presumably to the T.U.C., did the T.U.C. accept this extra six months' conscription?

Mr. Profumo: Talks of this sort must remain confidential. I am not prepared to disclose what was said in our discussions. I have told the Committee that they were favourable and that the discussions that we had were on the narrower issue of whether or not a system of "Ever-readies" could be made to work. I repeat what I have just said. It does not matter what we in this Chamber decide. Even if we decide to

welcome it, it is the employers and trade unions who will make the scheme workable.
I should like to say a few words about the Second Amendment, and to deal with the question of not calling up anyone under Clause 2 if "Ever-readies" are available.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I wonder if my right hon. Friend would clear up one point. If we want to make this volunteer force a success, it will be a considerable time before we get the right men properly trained for the reserve. Therefore, it would not be a substitute for calling up under Clause 1.

Mr. Profumo: The point has been made that some men who became "Ever-readies" might well have just stopped doing their National Service and could be regarded as pretty well trained. I see my hon. Friend's point. The main point is that we cannot build a force of this nature on a really voluntary basis if the moment a man is recruited to the "Ever-readies" he is put straight back into the Army. That is not the purpose of this new long-term reserve.
I made it plain on Second Reading that it would he the intention of the Government to call out Territorial Army Emergency Reservists before recalling National Service men under Clause 2. I have made it plain and will make it plain again, in spite of the hon. Member's attempt to suggest that we were trying to get the men we want on the cheap and, because it would be cheaper, we should call up the part-time National Service men liable under Clause 2.
If the hon. Member does a calculation, he will find that there is only about £30 difference. Once we have a Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, we are bound to pay the bounty of £150 a year whether or not we call up the men. We should, therefore, be committed to the £150 and we should not save it by calling up part-time National Service men. The difference in the gratuity would be between £20 in one case and £50 in the other. No Government would be skinflint to the extent of saying that although they paid those men £150 bounty, they would call up the other less well-trained men in order to save £30 per man. To do so would be ridiculous.
I have made the point that we would call up the "Ever-readies" in preference to part-time National Service men. What I cannot do is to guarantee this. I do not want to make it a statutory obligation, because it could lead to inflexibility, and considerable difficulty might arise even by the use of the words "similar qualifications" in the Amendment. In circumstances such as would envisage who would say what were or were not "similar qualifications"? However much hon. Members might like to do something of that sort, I cannot put the legislation in jeopardy in that way.
I cannot take on a statutory obligation, but I give an absolute undertaking, which is bound to be carried out, because from the Government's point of view it is far better to call up the "Ever-readies", that we will call them in priority to anybody under Clause 2. I cannot, however, he hound by statutory obligations. I hope the Committee will understand concerning Clause 1 that it would make nonsense and would throttle this new Reserve at birth if the moment we enrolled the men in it, we were to call them up and put them into the Army instead of the retained National Service men.
For that reason, I am unable to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Winterbottom: In trying to defend his policy, the Secretary of State for War has reminded me forcibly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor has tried to institute a wage pause and has promised something that he will not institute in the future—that is, that he will do something about profits and dividends.
The Secretary of State for War has made it clear that he intends to extend the period of those now undergoing National Service. He has been so nebulous about those in the "Ever-ready" brigade under Clause 3 that one becomes suspicious whether they will ever be called at all. The Secretary of State said he would promise the House that he would call those under Clause 2 before those whom we call the "Ever-ready" brigade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry if my interpretation is wrong—

Mr. Profumo: It is not a wrong interpretation. It is the very reverse. I have given an undertaking twice—this is the third time—that we would call in priority the "Ever-readies" before we called any part-time National Service men under Clause 2. That is the very reverse of what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Winterbottom: In other words, before calling back to the Colours the National Service men—the ones who have served—under Clause 2, the Secretary of State will call up the "Ever-readies". Why cannot he give the opportunity to the ex-National Service man to join the "Ever-ready" brigade? A man who has already had his training might wish to volunteer for service under the conditions for the "Ever-ready" brigade. I want an assurance from the Minister that he will allow this. So far, we understand he is prohibiting these men from joining that brigade.

Mr. Profumo: Mr. Profumo indicated dissent.

Mr. John Hall: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member seems to be a little confused about this. I have understood right from the beginning that the Secretary of State will do all he can to encourage National Service men to join the "Ever-Readies". There is no prohibition of that to my knowledge, unless my right hon. Friend says something to the contrary.

Mr. Winterbottom: Now that I have that clear in my mind, I submit to the Secretary of State that it will be better to use the reserve of the "Ever-Readies" than those who are at present doing National Service. I submit it because, with the application of Clause 1, we shall have a very limited extension of conscription, especially when the concessions under the hardship Clauses are taken into account. Therefore, we shall have serving a longer period in the Army people who have a growing sense of dissatisfaction. I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that those who are in the Army at the moment are those National Service men who were the last to be called to the service, perhaps because time and circumstances were against them at that moment.
They resented the fact that they had to go and that some others were not called to the Colours. All kinds of prevention happened whereby a man cannot be called under Clause 2 of the Bill and will not serve under Clause 1, yet a man with equal claims to exemption from National Service on hardship ground may be serving at the moment.
I should like to give one or two illustrations. Just before the final intake of men into National Service a man asked me how he could avoid it. I pointed to the hardship tribunal. I do not believe that if he had gone before that tribunal he would have suceeded in his claim to periodic exemption. I believe that the tribunal would have said, "You ought to go into the Forces now. Your case of hardship is not fully justified." But before he reached the hardship tribunal the intake was stopped. Yet a man older than himself with more responsibilities had already gone into the Forces and is still there and under Clause 1, will be called upon to serve an extra six months.
I should like to illustrate this argument by quoting the case of a famous personality in this country, Cliff Richard, who was one month short of being called to the Forces.

Mr. Willis: Who is Cliff Richard?

Mr. Winterbottom: There is no doubt that we shall have to deal with the principle of further education for Members of Parliament before very long. Cliff Richard is a very famous "pop" singer.

Mr. Loughlin: What is a "pop" singer?

Mr. Winterbottom: Cliff Richard is just over 21 years of age. I would say, subject to physical fitness, that in the normal circumstances of conscription he would be serving in the Colours today. He was a month too young to be called up, but a man who was a month older and who was called up can serve more than two years plus anything that may now be imposed upon him by the Secretary of State.
9.30 p.m.
The fact is that two years is not the maximum which is now being served. Many National Service men are already

serving for longer. Many of those brought home from the Far East do not get back to this country until their two years' service has been exceeded. When the period of leave is added to their service, it works out at almost two years and two months. Now, on top of that, these men are to serve an extra six months.
The Secretary of State is trying to secure through National Service men what he has failed to get by an intake of Regulars. He may think that this is creditable, but it will cause a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the men in the Forces who feel that they have been discriminated against and that they are getting a raw deal. Indeed, they feel that the Secretary of State has broken faith with them after the promises which were made. It is because of that that I support the Amendment.
If the Secretary of State can get an "Ever-ready" brigade by voluntary means, it will be far better to have in it the type of man who has already had his training as a National Service man or as a Regular. It would be far better to have such men in the Forces than the remains of the National Service scheme, with dissatisfied men having to stay on, feeling aggrieved in spite of the fact that their pay has been raised to the level of the Regular soldier's.
Most of these men now in the Forces are 21 years of age and over, and in ordinary civil life would be receiving, in many cases, a journeyman's rate of pay. There are men now receiving the ordinary infantryman's rate who, if they came back to my constituency to work in a steel factory, would be getting £20 or £25 a week. Yet the Secretary of State is asking such men to sacrifice, at a cheap rate, the heritage they have worked for.
The Government are making a big mistake, which is the result of their inefficiency and inability either to read the signs of the times or to prepare adequate defence of this country. Because they have failed they want to thrust the responsibility upon Parliament by this Bill—responsibility for what is, in peace time, a system that can only be likened to the slave labour of times gone by.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I listened carefully to the speech


of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) in an endeavour to discover whether there was a substantial answer to the Amendment. I am bound to say that I failed to see even an outline of one. The right hon. Gentleman invited us to think that we had disregarded what he described as the long-term concept of the "Ever-readies". I do not think that any disregard of that kind is implicit in the Amendment.
What is fundamental to the concept of the "Ever-readies" is surely the fact that they are to be a voluntary force and that they become "Ever-readies" by entering voluntarily into written agreements. It is not the fact that they do not know when they are to be called up that makes them "Ever-readies". That is not the basic characteristic of the force. The basic characteristic of the force is that its members are volunteers. There is nothing in the Amendment which runs counter to that.
There was the same fault in the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Member. He suggested that hon. Members on this side of the Committee were overoptimistic in their expectation of the numbers of "Ever-readies" who would be forthcoming and over-confident about the times at which they would be forthcoming. That again does not seem to answer the arguments which we have presented.
After all, what the Amendment is is a logical conclusion of a proposition which, I would have thought, all hon. Members could agree was perfectly reasonable, namely, that the number of men who are to be retained under Clause 1 should be affected, at least in some measure, by the number of volunteers available under Clause 3. That is what we are asking for. It is true that our Amendment carries it to its logical conclusion, but that is what we are asking for.
Of course it is an inflexible proposal, and an unsatisfactory proposal because it is inflexible, that the number of men to be retained under Clause 1 may not be affected by the number of volunteers coming forward under Clause 3. The

Committee is entitled to expect and ask for a much more thorough and complete answer to the arguments which have been presented than it has hitherto received.
What strikes me about the proposal in Clause 1 is that it will be generally agreed by all hon. Members that the retention of men under Clause 1 may and in many instances will cause considerable hardship. Everyone recognises that there is an arbitrary element in the selection of men under Clause 1. The matter was very clearly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) who pointed out that these men coming at the end of National Service, who might have expected to receive somewhat less severe treatment than their predecessors, are being called upon to give longer service than they did
Earlier this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) adumbrated the hardship which is occurring in cases of men who have put in applications for compassionate release. Although it is recognised that these cases are often generously treated by the War Office, in certain cases the applications may have been turned down because the War Office felt, not wholly unreasonably, that because the man did not have much longer to serve, the hardship could not be regarded as so severe as to come within the expression "exceptional hardship".
For a man who has had his application for release perhaps rather narrowly rejected because of considerations of that kind to be retained for the additional six months is, of course, a very considerable hardship indeed.

Mr. Hale: Whose wife has left him because of long periods of separation, who is anxious to get back to try to restart his home and has entered into contractual obligations to provide himself with what he needs, and then finds that he is deprived of the chance of having it.

Mr. Irvine: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. In my view there factors make it very clear that hardship is involved, and I think that this is generally recognised.
That being so, it is clearly desirable, on the assumption that additional forces are needed, that they should if possible


be taken from elements who want to serve and not from elements which may include the cases of greater hardship to which I have referred.
Our Amendment seeks merely to make the machinery proposed under the Bill less inflexible. It is an endeavour to ensure that the number of men to be retained under Clause 1 will be more explicitly affected by the number of "Ever-readies" available under Clause 3. To us on this side of the Committee this seems a difficult proposition to answer.
At an earlier stage the Committee rejected an Amendment which aimed at interpolating an Order by way of Statutory Instrument between the coming into force of this Bill and the exercise of the powers contained in it. The fact that the Committee has rejected the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) makes it the more desirable that it should take this opportunity of spelling into the Bill a degree of flexibility which it lacks at the moment.
The more we are deprived, after this Bill has become law, of the opportunity in the course of debates on Orders and things of that kind of raising matters, the more desirable it is to take the opportunity now to spell into the Bill a degree of flexibility, and to ensure, as the Amendment seeks to do, that as a matter of Statute Law the number of men to be retained under Clause 1 shall necessarily be affected by the number of volunteers coming forward under Clause 3.
That is what the Amendment asks for, and it is no answer to say, as has been said, that that point of view disregards the character of the proposed voluntary reserve. That is not so. In fact, far from that being so the foundation of this Amendment is the fact that the proposed Clause 3 reserve is a voluntary one, and we desire that relatively greater claims should be made on that element than on the element referred to in Clause 1, where a considerable number of cases of hardship may be expected to be found.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I apologise to my hon. Friend right away for not knowing who Cliff Richard was.

Mr. Ede: Is.

Mr. Willis: I apologise again for not knowing that he is still living. I want to make one or two points before I deal with the reply of the Secretary of State. First, I want to deal with the interjection of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), that the Bill treats National Service men who are to be retained for more than two years more generously than the Labour Government did.

Mr. John Hall: My point was that, so far as my recollection goes, when the Socialist Government had to hold back National Service men to meet an emergency they did not give them the amount of bonus which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was urging the Government to give in this case.

Mr. Willis: I thought that I was making another point made by the hon. Member, which arose as a result of the proposal made by my hon. Friend that the bonus should be given. All I wanted to say about that was that conditions are now quite different from what they were in 1950. We happened to be at war in 1950. I suggest that even if the Labour Government were wrong in what they did at the time that is no reason why we should not try to do the right thing now.

Mr. Hale: This is the only subject in this debate upon which I can speak with expertise. I joined the Army in 1939, when we had a Conservative Government. My pay was 14s. a week, less 7s. deducted for the missus, less 1s. in case I got into debt, and an allowance of 4s. a week for my first child and 3s. for my second. I can give the precise figures which the Conservative Government paid to the Army when war broke out in 1939, after an election in which they had pledged support for the League of Nations and for the preservation of peace.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is quite flattering to the Labour Government for the Tories always to compare what they are now doing with what the Labour Government did. We are glad that the Tories think that what we did was so good that it should form a standard by which to test the activities of the Tories. But even I do not go as far as to say that


what the Labour Government did was as wonderful as all that. I am prepared to support them, but I do not think that what they did was perfect. All I want to say is that whether it was good or bad, right or wrong. we are now considering this proposal, and our job is to ask ourselves whether, in the circumstances of today, what is being done by the Government is right. We are not being asked to judge what the Labour Government did earlier.

Mr. John Hall: The only reason for my intervention was that it is possible to judge the value of the utterances made today from the benches opposite against the standards of past occasions.

Mr. Willis: The man whose ideas never develop over a period of ten years is not a man at all. He does not think. We happen to be rather different.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) did not answer the case made by my hon. Friend. He said, first, that we might not have a sufficient number of "Ever-readies" to fill the gap that at present exists and, secondly, that they might not be trained. Both points are covered by the Amendment. It is a proviso. It says:
provided there is no person of similar qualifications…".
In other words, if there were not enough "Ever-readies" we would take men under Clause 1.
I now turn to the case made by the Secretary of State against the Amendment. I will adhere strictly to the case made. In the first place, his case was that he was willing to give a solemn undertaking that what we are asking him to do in connection with Clause 2, he would do; but he could not put it into the Bill. I do not wish to question the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that his most solemn undertaking means nothing unless it is incorporated in the Bill. Any Secretary of State taking office after the right hon. Gentleman would be able to do as he wished. I suggest that a test of his solemn pledge would be for the right hon. Gentleman to try to find words to incorporate into Clause 2 the principle which we are advocating.
With regard to Clause I the argument of the right hon. Gentleman against the

use of the "Ever-readies" in place of retaining the National Service man for an extra six months was that he was trying to build up a Territorial emergency reserve which was a long-term concept. He said it was impossible to build this if there was a certainty that the men might be called up. He could build it up only if there were simply a possibility that they might be called up. To me this seems a rather strange argument. Who is to determine what is a certainty or a possibility? Surely the difference between these two concepts depends on the international situation at a given moment and this might well change within a period of three or six months. I could not follow the logic of that argument.
Nor could I follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that it was quite wrong to be able to expect to build up a force if the people joining did so in the knowledge and certainty that they had to do six months in the Service. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a man who is to volunteer under the provisions of Clause 3 will get a gratuity or payment of £150 a year. If he is called up for six months he gets that on top of his pay. I can easily visualise that a man might be tempted to do six months' service if, in addition to the fuller rates of pay, he could get £150 for that service. That amounts to something like £6 a week over and above his Regular soldier's pay. Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest, or does the Under-Secretary suggest, that some men will not be prepared to join if they can get £6 a week extra? I suggest that a number of men might be attracted by an additional £6 over and above, not the pay of a National Service man, but that of a Regular soldier.

Mr. Morris: Plus a £50 bonus.

Mr. Willis: Yes, plus £50 bonus.

Mr. Morris: Tax-free.

Mr. Willis: This becomes a handsome inducement to people to join.
I found it difficult to follow the other point which the Minister made. He argued that if a man did join and was called up at once we could not expect his employer to co-operate. Either the Secretary of State for War expects that the man would not join because he might have to do six months' service,


and therefore he regards that as a disincentive, or he looks at it as an incentive. If it be a disincentive, the problem regarding the employer does not arise. What was the position adopted by the Secretary of State? Which horse was he trying to ride?

Mr. Wigg: Both.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend says "both". The late Jimmy Maxton told us at one time that a man had to be able to ride two horses to be in this circus. I do not know which argument the right hon. Gentleman backed. Both arguments seemed to be fallacious, because in connection with the argument about the employer if the international situation worsened—and only today the Prime Minister told us that it was critical—the employer would lose the man. How can an employer be given the certainty that this situation will not worsen next year? I do not know, and I do not think that the Under-Secretary does.
The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are difficult to accept. They apply mainly to Clause 1 and not to Clause 2. As they are difficult to accept, the principle advocated in the Amendment is still a sound one, namely that if people can be obtained voluntarily they should be used in preference to conscripts. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made a very good case based on four sound arguments, none of which was answered. Before we vote on this Amendment, as I hope that we shall, I want to hear the Government's answer to my hon. Friend's speech. I also want an answer to the points I have raised.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This argument falls into two compartments—first, the immediate necessity of calling up men, and, secondly, the very long-term view of forming an efficient good reserve. In order to form such a reserve, a reasonable amount of time must be allowed so that the men can be properly selected. It is no good trying to get together a scratch reserve in a short time. This is a long process. With the best will in the world, my right hon. Friend will not be able to get this reserve in working order for at least six months. In the meantime, it is obvious that men must be retained under Clause 1.
Consultations have already taken place and both unions and employers are

agreeable to co-operating with the reserve, which has a possible liability but not a certainty. In six months or a year's time we shall have a very efficient and reliable reserve, but we should not have it if we tried to get it working immediately.

Mr. Hale: I did not want to intervene in this discussion, and, indeed, I have no intention of doing so, except to the extent of asking one question which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put forcibly but which has not yet been replied to. Another reason is that I see that the Secretary of State for War has. returned.
I want to place on record the fact that, although I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Winterbottom), my former constituent, with respectful attention, and nearly always with agreement, I do not think that his argument about the hardship to higher paid workers was the sort of argument which should be advanced. I have always taken the view that, on the whole, we are here to protect the poor and the weak rather than the rich and the strong, whether they are workers or whether they are not.
I recall that when I was stationed at Norton-on-Tees during the war and when my income was insufficient to buy beer of the strength which was then being brewed for puddlers at the price at which it was being brewed, a puddler stood me a pint and told me that we were to land at Cherbourg and knock Hitler off the map. I invited him to go further and tell me whether he was going to do it or whether I was. I gather that he got me designated for the purpose. Not for the first time I was afflicted with a sense of my own unsuitability for tests for which I was designated.
I want to put what is surely a question which may be put to the Secretary of State. He used this observation—I hope I am quoting him from memory correctly—"I cannot be bound by a statutory definition".

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on the Army Reserve Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the

provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 120.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grimston, Sir Robert
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Aitken, W. T.
Gurden, Harold
Partridge, E.


Allason, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Arbuthnot, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Peel, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, Sir James


Barter, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Miss Edith


Batsford, Brian
Hastings, Stephen
Pott, Percivall


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bell, Ronald
Hendry, Forbes
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Berkeley, Humphry
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Ramsden, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Bossom, clive
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Ronald


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St. Clair, M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, dames


Bryan, Paul
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Sharples, Richard


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kershaw, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Steward, Harold (Stookport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Lindsay, Martin
Talbot, John E.


Cordle, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V-
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Lioyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Longden, Gilbert
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Cunningham, Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Turner, Colin


Curran, Charles
McLaren, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
vane, W. M. P.


Dance, James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Deedes, W. F.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Maitland, Sir John
ward, Dame Irene


Duncan, Sir James
Marshall, Douglas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mawby, Ray
Wise, A. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Mills, Stratton
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gammans, Lady
Nabarro, Gerald
Woollam, John


Gilmour, Sir John
Neave, Alrey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Noble, Michael



Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Whitelaw.


Green, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Diamond, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bence, Cyril
Collick, Percy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benson, Sir George
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert


Blyton, William
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Erie


Boardman, H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forman, J. C.


Boyden, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Deer, George
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David




Gordon Walker, Bt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mclnnes, James
Ross, William


Greenwood, Anthony
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Short, Edward


Grey, Charles
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacMillan, Malcolm(Western Isles)
Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Small, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mapp, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hannan, William
Marsh, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Hayman, F, H.
Mayhew, Christopher
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mellish, R. J.
Stones, William


Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.
Swingler, Stephen


Holt, Arthur
Millan, Bruce
Symonds, J. B.


Houghton, Douglas
Milne, Edward J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mitchison, G. R



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, Arthur
Thornton, Ernest


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Weitzman, David


Irvine, A, J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.
Wigg, George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker. John
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Peart, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. C (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


King, Dr. Horace
Randall, Harry



Lawson, George
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ledger, Ron
Reynolds, G. W.
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. McCann.


Loughlin, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Hale: I rose twenty minutes ago, just before the Parliamentary Last Post was sounded, to put a question which seemed to me at that time to be of vital importance and an answer to which was essential to the proper continuation of the debate. In the intervening period, however, I have forgotten what it was. As that was the primary and sole purpose of my rising I am in a difficulty. I must say that the interruption is disturbing. I observed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) complained on Second Reading that we are astonishingly top-heavy with top brass. After making rather the reverse complaint last night, it appears that this matter has been adjusted, for I notice that we are back in Committee and I can now try to apply my mind to the problem on hand.
I understood the Secretary of State for War to say, "I cannot be bound by a statutory definition of my power or a statutory limitation". I confess humbly that I have been out of the Chamber for something to eat and thus I have not heard every word that has been uttered in the debate. But earlier in the day the Secretary of State was asking for statutory powers. He was presenting a Bill which was saying, on his behalf, "Enable me to do something".
The right hon. Gentleman's attitude as one of Her Majesty's personal servants and the adviser on matters relating to war does not entitle him to come to the House and ask for statutory powers and at the same time say, "Of course, I will not have you laying down limitations. All I ask for is a blanket power to do something about the troops". At an earlier stage—as defined by one of his right hon. Friend's—that meant doing some dirty work in Hong Kong one week, having a look at the situation in a Colonial Territory the next, taking steps about Germany or N.A.T.O.—or the Common Market—another time, rectifying some deficiency in the Signal Corps, reorientating same arrangements for mechanical transport and calling-up blokes to fill the decisions—the whole lot being pegged to an assurance by him as long as he remains Secretary of State for War.
I shall not be very surprised if the right hon. Gentleman does not remain as Secretary of State for that long. He might be promoted. But while he stays in his present post he can only tell us, "My intentions are wholly honourable, but I cannot put them into writing". He also says, "My desires are these, but I would not like them to be defined" All that was all right because that is in the strict Tory tradition and none of us, after sixteen years of agony, would complain about minor bruises.
Then the right hon. Gentleman made the fatal mistake that was made by the young magistrate who went to the West Indies who was advised never to give any reasons; and having had ten successful years in an off-moment gave his reasons. The Secretary of State for War said that he could not have words like "similar" in a statute. It is all frightfully difficult, for if there is any word that has been legally defined more than that I do not know what it is.
I can remember once in Parliamentary history when the House decided to put in words which it was thought were simple to understand—"out of and in the course of employment"—and 45 county judges have been fully employed on trying to define just what those words mean. There is no possible doubt about the word "similar". It is known to lawyers as the ejusdem generis rule. We say that if one starts by something that is reasonably clear, and goes wandering off onto something that is not, it cannot mean much more than the first words. I hope that, by putting it with my customary clarity, I have made the matter absolutely clear to the Committee.
10.15 p.m.
There is, after all, a point at which British subjects have some dislike of the word "conscription". Charles James Fox, of course, was remembered as one who put an end to conscription in Africa. Ever since then, this forced labour, in any form, has aroused emotional reactions among libertarian Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State is dealing with people who have been forced away from their homes, from their wives and families, from their normal avocations, and who have been asked to surrender their future in, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) says, the course of duty. Duty is a variable concept. Chauvin took a rather different view of duty from the one I should take. But there it is; it is conscription. We cannot have it both ways. If the call of duty strikes in the heart of the Briton, we do not need conscription. Conscription has to be imposed only when the call of duty is not striking very forcibly in the hearts of Britons and it is decided that something must be done in the common interest.
The Secretary of State says, "We have called them up once, but I cannot have this defined. I cannot have it said that, in the exercise of the powers which I desire to exercise benevolently, I must be limited by definition. I shall exercise the powers benevolently, with due regard to the rights of the individual which I shall have constantly in mind in considering the mass sorrow and inconvenience and the individual hardship which these measures will cause. I and my large staff realise the great difficulty of the situation in considering 15,000 individual cases spread all over Britain, and we shall be willing to apply the benevolent and moving heart of the War Office in the way that the War Office normally gives attention to moving individual cases".
He tells us that he really cannot submit to any definition. He cannot submit to any restrictions. He cannot submit to any obligation to come to the House and be asked why he has done this or not done that. He says that these powers may not be exercised. He says that he does not think that they will be exercised for six months anyhow, unless the situaion gets worse. Whether the situation is bad or not, of course, is a matter of very varied opinion, with the Prime Minister at the 17th hole and the Foreign Secretary having just missed a right and a left. However, so far as we can apply local views to the situation and so far as we can arrive at some measure of unanimity, perhaps we can say that, if the situation, even under a Tory Government, has not got any worse before April than the Prime Minister has been describing it during the last week or two, the powers will not be exercised but, says the Secretary of State, he would like to have them just in case.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us, "If I do exercise these powers, I shall do it with all the regard I can possibly pay to the liberty of the subject, but not with any limitation, not with chaps like the hon. Member for Dudley asserting that I must say what I intend to do now, not with Members of the House of Commons saying that they will go through the Lobby to put some restrictions on the exercise of these collective powers".
This seems to be a new constitutional doctrine. That is why I have humbly risen to put this simple question as briefly as I can. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to me, before I am called to vote, just what he means by it.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) at this late hour, but since he has mentioned me and my conception of duty, I think I might tell the Committee a story which, although I think I have told it to the House on two previous occasions, seems apposite in this connection. I wish that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) were here at this moment, because he shared the experience.
The hon. and gallant Member and I went to Russia with the Parliamentary delegation. Both of us asked whether, among the things we should like to see, we could see something of the Russian Army. This request was not favourably received when we made it in London, but we made it again when we got to Moscow and eventually the day came. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and I were met by a Russian staff officer who took us to a unit outside Moscow. He was a highly intelligent man who spoke impeccable English. We described to him our system of call-up. He, in his way, described the Russian system of call-up. We, wanting perhaps to make a point in favour of our system, talked about the rights of the conscientious objector. We told him that in our country a man who had conscientious objection went before a tribunal of his fellow citizens and was exempted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Some of them were refused exemption.

Mr. Wigg: Some were refused, but a man had the right to be exempted from military service if his fellow citizens accepted that he was genuine in his belief.
This had the Russian completely beaten. We went mile after mile doing our best to explain it to him. He said, "Do you mean to say that there are men in your country who do not want to do military service and are allowed to escape from military service?" We said, "Yes" "But," he said, "it is their

duty". The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing will remember that occasion.
It seems to me that that story illustrates the challenge that we in the West have to meet. Here is a society which is based on an intensely puritanical conception of the word "duty". I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West used a French word, liberty. I prefer the word "freedom". Inside freedom, we must, as it were, have a balance between privilege and obligations. The obligations of defending the things in which one believes is one of those privileges. That is the way that I regard the matter.
I utterly reject the point of view that service in the Army is misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, when he was aroused in 1940, immediately dashed to the Colours and served with great distinction in anti-aircraft batteries. As a result, the blitz was postponed for at least a year.

Mr. Hale: In this dissertation of the meaning of Leninism, will my hon. Friend tell us what Lenin did during the last war?

Mr. Wigg: He probably did what my hon. Friend did—voted for peace with his feet. In the last war he was engaged in a "pause", I understand.
The point that I wish to make is serious. Whether we accept this concept or not, we fail in our duty if we do not at least see it. We are here considering organising our Armed Forces in order to meet the obligations which politics, whether consciously or otherwise, have imposed on us. The decision whether we should be a conscript power or not does not lie with this Committee. That decision was taken, perhaps, at the beginning of this century, when we went into the Entente cordiale and accepted the obligation of putting, at that time, six British divisions on the French left. That could not have been carried out without conscription. The idea that it could be done by voluntary service—and there are still some survivors of this idea today—made the carnage of Mons and the Marne certain. Although some hon. Members may not agree with it, many men of the Regular Army paid with their lives for the failure of this country


to face up in political terms to military obligations. That is what I have been trying to point out in the last ten years. I am gradually getting one or two converts to take that point of view.
Once this country went into N.A.T.O. and accepted the obligation of putting foul divisions in Germany in the British Army of the Rhine, conscription followed as sure as night follows day. If we begin step by step to welsh on that concept—from four divisions to 77,000 men, from 77,000 men to 64,000 men, from 64,000 men to 55,000 men, and from 55,000 men to 45,000 men—we put ourselves in the dilemma of having to depend on non-existent atomic weapons because there is nothing else with which to redress the balance. Now the realities of the situation have brought a halt, and the Government are caught in the vice of their own policy. That is the truth.
I rose partly provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West—

Mr. Hale: No-stimulated.

Mr. Wigg: I prefer the word "provoked"—and partly by the Secretary of State for War.
It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman, in his anxiety to meet the arguments on this Clause which were put to him, has thrown away his policy on Clause 3. What is he seeking to do? At the moment, there is a General Reserve numbering about 800,000 men. It is not worth very much, because nobody knows where they are. In any case, the obligation for recall to the General Reserve expires on 30th June, 1964. There are some 200,000 National Service men with a liability to recall at short notice. This is not worth much, because the main difference between now and the time of Korea is that we have no system of national registration. By this time, nobody knows where those 200,000 men are. Some tests have been done, and I suggest that the Secretary of State carries out a few more in the Record Office. He would find that movement of these men is phenomenal. If he wanted to call up that 200,000, I would he surprised if he could put his finger on 50,000 of them. Therefore, he is now faced with this stop-gap Measure, which

can only last, at the outside, until May, 1966. By next November, the last National Service man will be out of the Army except for those held under Clause 1 of the Bill. After three and a half years, by May, 1966, they will have gone.
The only thing that the Secretary of State can do is to endeavour to build up his "Ever-readies". If he now turns round, as he has done, and gives the House an assurance—which, he says, he would like to put in the Bill, but cannot—that he will call up men under Clause 3 before he starts calling up anybody under Clause 2, what does he think will happen?
Already, on 19th July, the Secretary of State made an announcement that he would give a bounty of £200 to National Service men to undertake Regular engagements. The answer which he has received is the coconut. As the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) mentioned, the Secretary of State has reached double figures. That is just about what he has got and that is what he expects. Although he offers a bounty of £150 plus a £50 tax-free bonus when they are called up, people do not mind taking an even money chance, or, perhaps, two-to-one against, but if they know of a certainty that at the moment they take their money somebody puts his hand on their shoulder and says, "Hey, Joe, you are in Germany"—if the Secretary of State does not know the answer, I will tell him with far greater accuracy than his advisers have done. He will not get anything like the number of men he wants. If the Secretary of State is seeking genuinely to build up a reserve out of the "Ever-readies", it is a doubtful starter in any circumstances.
These young men will soldier, not in a Territorial unit and not in a unit that is of the second class. They will be asked to serve alongside fully-trained Regular soldiers. They will be called up in a situation in which they have to undertake active operations. The only training that many of these fellows will have done is one camp. The Secretary of State is saying to the National Service man, "Ah. Come along, you have got to join the Territorial Army and accept the obligations of training before you can become an 'Ever-ready'."


The Secretary of State told us in a previous speech, whether he still means it or not, that although the chaps may join the Territorial Army in the first instance, the commanding officer of the Territorials and the selecting officer will look at these men with extreme care. There is no guarantee that if they join, they will get £150. How many National Service men are likely to take the hook with no bait on it? I would have thought, remarkably few. If they have escaped from the Army, will they let themselves in for a situation in which they are required to do drills and attend camp and have no prospect of getting the "lolly"? Even if they are then selected it is not even a question of doubt. It is an absolute certainty they will say "Ta-ta" and find themselves soldiering in Berlin or the Rhine Army. We may get a few enthusiasts but I doubt that we can build up the reserves to the required size, particularly not by the early part of 1966. One has only to advance the proposition to see the fallacy of it.
10.30 p.m.
The truth is that Clause 3 is a sort of sales talk for Clauses 2 and 4. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman believes—he is far too intelligent to believe—it, and he says this with assurance and advances it because it helps him out of a difficulty; but it has no serious value whatever.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on their Amendment because by it that assurance disappears by a side wind as it were, for this debate once again has revealed, as the previous debate revealed, that this is not a serious Bill at all—or rather, the reasons which are advanced for it are not advanced seriously. It is a stop-gap Measure, forced on the Government at the last moment as the result of external pressure to deal—according to the Prime Minister, who is the only one who told us the truth—first of all with the basic fact that the Army is out of balance. Whether the Berlin situation had been there or not, the Army was out of balance. That imbalance was born of the 1957 policies, which helped to create the present situation. The two things combined present the problem which the Government have got to deal with. In other words, they face a military record that the 182,000 men who are the basic

minimum which the Army requires are not there. It is a stop-gap Measure to dress the window to try to help them out of the difficulty. Once again, the Government have accidentally themselves revealed the truth.

Mr. Kershaw: I refer to the point which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made, that our continental commitments have condemned us to a large measure of conscription, of selective service. I wonder if that is really so, under modern conditions. It is well known that our obligation in N.A.T.O. of keeping troops in Germany arose out of our obligations under the Brussels Treaty, and was not to terrify the Russians but in order to coax the French into accepting the Treaty; in order, rather, to watch the Germans and not the Russians. That political reason has clearly disappeared, and the situation is not anything like that today.

Mr. Crossman: Is the hon. Member saying it is all right to welsh on commitments if they are made to allies? He actually said that our undertaking to hold troops in Germany is a promise which is Out of date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did not matter."]—and did not matter. That is not something which the French appreciate.

Mr. Kershaw: Of course, I said absolutely nothing of the sort. If the hon. Member had been listening he would have known that. I am discussing the strategic implications of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley said in his speech. I am saying that the strategic implications today are different from what they were originally. The numbers of troops were fixed at that time partially for military reasons in order to make some sort of contribution to compare with what the Russians had. We were the main providers of manpower in those days, and that situation has also altered. We have never had—

Sir F. Maclean: Sir F. Maclean rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Kershaw: I will in a minute. We have a rather different defensive position from that which obtained at that time. Of course we have obligations. I am not for one moment suggesting, I would make clear, that we should in any way welsh on our commitments.

Mr. Crossman: We have.

Mr. Kershaw: We have not. I am not suggecting we should go back on what we have done. General Norstad demands 30 divisions in fulfilment of his obligations there, and we should contribute exactly what we promised. But, from the military point of view, the situation today is very different from what it used to be. The defences can enjoy a superiority—if that is the correct word—of at least three, and probably seven, to one—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate these remarks to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Kershaw: I am trying to deal with the argument which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) put forward about the size of the Army that we should maintain in Germany. This Amendment is designed to deal with the size of the Army, and I am suggesting that the present conditions which render it necessary to keep the Army there are very different from those which existed in the days to which the hon. Member referred. From the military, economic

and political points of view, they have changed.

Sir F. Maclean: When my hon. Friend says that the situation has changed, does he mean that we have been released from our obligations?

Mr. Kershaw: No, we have not been released from our obligations. As to fulfilling our obligations, as my hon. Friend will know, we have had the consent of our allies to the reductions that we have made since those days. Furthermore, we have undertaken to keep 55,000 troops in Germany, and our troops at present number 64,000, including the Air Force. Therefore, I do not think that we have in any way welshed on our commitments. Our Army there is better equipped and better able to give an account of itself than any of the troops which our allies keep there. I do not think it can be said that we are welshing or that our proposals make it more difficult for us to fulfil our treaty obligations.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 92, Noes 151.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[10.38 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Holt, Arthur
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Boyden, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brookway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rose, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stones, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Evans, Albert
Mclnnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm(Western Isles)
Thornton, Ernest


George,Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Wigg, George


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward J.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will
Mr. Short and Mr. McCann.


Holman, Percy
Paget, R. T.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Allason, James
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, Sir James


Atkins, Humphrey
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barlow, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen
Pott, Percivall


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Batsford, Brian
Hendry, Forbes
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Berkeley, Humphry
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hilt, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Quennell, Mis J. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Peter


Bossom, Clive
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon, Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Renton, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Russell Ronald


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
St. Clair, M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bryan, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


Carr, compton (Barons Court)
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Chataway, Christopher
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lindsay, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Litchfield, Capt. John
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Talbot, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Longbottom, Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
McLaren, Martin
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Curran, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, Colin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
van straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker, Peter


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Finlay, Graeme

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Gammans, Lady
Nabarro, Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gilmour, Sir John
Noble, Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
OaKshott, Sir Hendrie
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Goodhart, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Partridge, E.
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Green, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Michael Hamilton.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Peel, John

Mr. George Brown: Perhaps at this moment I may beg to ask leave to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move this Motion in order that we might ascertain the Government's intentions. We have had a good day's debating and have made good progress. The attention that should be given to a Bill of this nature—one which interferes with people's liberties—has been given to it, and there has been nothing even remotely in the way of obstruction. I feel that the Government must be happy with the progress, and I am sure that at this time of night it would not be in the interests of the Committee, of the country and of these young men and their parents, who are writing to us all about the Bill, that we should go on debating it beyond a point where what we are saying can be understood or even heard by them.
With the Government's majority hovering around the danger mark at not more than two-thirds of its proper number, despite all that the Patronage Secretary can do, there must be, on the Government side, as on our side, a clear interest in bringing these proceedings to a close and resuming at some other time. I suggest that this is a very appropriate time—for we have dealt with the last two very substantial Amendments—to finish for the day and start fresh again at another sitting. I therefore ask the Secretary of State for War to indicate whether he and the Government feel as we do.

Mr. Profumo: I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that we feel the same way on this or any other matter. I agree that we have got on well with each other today, but I hoped that we might have gone on with the Bill a little better than we have. We took four hours on the first Amendment and I spoke for only a short time—I agree that it was very important—and this is what tempts me to feel that we should go a little further, because every time we discuss another Amendment I feel that the case we are putting becomes clearer in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and I would not like to break off and

have to go through all this again next week, having to give educational instruction before we get on to the Clauses proper. On the other hand, there is no question of the Government's majority flagging. We have not yet called out the "Ever-readies".

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not yet called out the "Ever-readies". Does that mean that he is relying for the moment on retaining the conscripts?

Mr. Profumo: We on this side of the Committee do not have to do that. We are all volunteers. I notice that shadows are appearing on the faces of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whether this is due to weariness or the feeling that they may not be able to catch their trains, I do not know. On the other hand, we would like to be generous, and I hope that if I make a suggestion it might appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We do not want to sit here all night. In the interests of making progress, might I suggest that we try two more stages? Suppose we try to take the next two groups of Amendments? If hon. Gentleman can withhold their volubility while maintaining their interest, we might leave—

Mr. Loughlin: Where will that take us to in the Bill?

Mr. Profumo: We shall still be on Clause 1. I thought that we might perhaps take the next two groups of Amendments, which would be Nos. 3 and 4, page 1, line 10, and page 1, line 13. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) may have other attractions with four legs tomorrow, so I hope that the frost is not too hard. I do not know whether this would accommodate hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would be prepared to make that sacrifice.

Mr. G. Brown: There is no question of a sacrifice by the Government. All the Clauses must be thoroughly and properly examined. I merely asked what the Government were hoping to get tonight. If the right hon. Gentleman sees any shadows on our faces, I assure him that it is just the reflection of the faces opposite. We intend completely to do our duty to our constituents.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will be content to call it a day when we have got the next two groups of Amendments, which would take us to Clause 4—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] That is a perfect example of why we should not go on beyond a reasonable time. It becomes difficult to keep oneself in line. If we took the next two Amendments, that would take us to Amendment No. 4, and therefore get rid of the next two groups. I think that this is a reasonable arrangement of business, and I would be disposed to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to fall in with that suggestion.
I hope, therefore, that I might be permitted to withdraw the Motion, on the understanding that when we have completed the next two groups we will call it a day. I hope that the Committee will give these two groups of Amendments all the attention that they deserve. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end to insert:
and subject to the provision of subsection (7) of section three of this Act".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss also the following Amendments: No. 6, page 1, line 18, and No. 26, Clause 2, page 2, line 2, both of which propose the insertion of the words:
and subject to the provision of subsection (7) of section three of this Act".
and No. 43, Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end add:
(7) Any person retained in or recalled to army service under the provisions of sections one and two of this Act may elect instead to enter into an agreement rendering him liable to be called out under the provisions of this section.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, Mr. Hynd.
Perhaps it might assist hon. Members in following the Amendment if I say that the Amendment I have moved deals with Clause 1; that Amendment No. 6 also deals with Clause 1; that Amendment No. 26 deals with Clause 2; and that if hon. Members turn to Amendment No. 43 they will be able to read what I am driving at. It is an endeavour on my part to encourage the Government to make provision for a man on whom a

notice has been served retaining him for six months, or a man whom they propose to call back under Clause 2, to be given the opportunity, even though the Government have served him with a notice to volunteer under Clause 3.
On the face of it rather looks as if I am allowing a man to wait until he is faced with the obligation of being called up and then allowing him to opt out in order to get the bounty that will be available. That, in fact, is my intention. I hold that the most important part of the Bill is Clause 3. If we are ever to get out of the mess that I believe we are in, Clause 3 has either to succeed or it must go and be replaced by something else. Therefore, it seems to me to be worth while making an effort to get men to accept the principle of volunteering, even if, in the short run, they escape a certain obligation.
I should have thought that the arguments I am putting forward were assisted by the right hon. Gentleman's previous decision to call out his "Ever-readies" before calling out men affected by Clause 2. What I am advancing here is not something I have thought out, but in my interest in methods of raising men I have looked as closely as I can at what the Americans have done—and they have scored a great political success by lifting the selection of men for military service out of the political arena. It was not an issue at the last election and it has not been since.
They have adopted ways which would not be wholly acceptable in this country, but they have used every means in their power to get men to volunteer. Last summer, with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I had the opportunity of going aboard the American atomic submarine, "Sea Wolf", when we all had the opportunity of meeting the crew. It consisted of men of obviously high intelligence, and almost every one was a man who had either waited for his draft or had seen it coming and had volunteered. They were doing a period of regular service, in the hope of getting an educational grant. The result was that the Americans got men of high quality to do an important technical job.
It seems to me that the number of men the Minister can call up may be of importance, but the quality of those


men is also of importance, and as time goes on and the complexity of our technical equipment tends all the time to increase, this question of quality becomes of paramount importance.
Although at first sight it would appear that all I am doing is adding to the Bill without getting any more men, my purpose is to get men into the habit of accepting the bounty. For example, if a man were to be designated to be retained for six months and he said, "Oh, no. If the opportunity exists I would volunteer to become an 'Ever-ready'", under the right hon. Gentleman's conception it is almost certain that he would get called up anyway. The point is that he has accepted the principle of volunteering, and he gets the £150, which helps him to buy a house, or a car, or a present for his wife—using the example given by the right hon. Gentleman.
That man will also do it the next year, and the year after. He will become an "Ever-ready", and will help the right hon. Gentleman to get the roots down. The great difficulty of the Minister is that in the early stages the "Ever-readies" may be little more than a coterie. He must turn it into a body of men who are ready to accept the need for the job they are doing and regard the financial inducements offered to them as reasonable. They must be encouraged to form the habit not only of volunteering themselves but of talking about the scheme to others, so that there is a snowball effect.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any obstructive intention. The Amendment was put down with the serious purpose of trying to help him to get the "Ever-readies" established on the right lines.
11.0 p.m.
I felt it incumbent on me to do this because I am not optimistic about the outcome. I have a great number of reservations about it. Those of us who wish to see a worth-while Regular Army should do all we can to make this work so that every idea is put into the pool and tried out or rejected. Then, in due time, either the right hon. Gentleman will be proved right and his "Ever-ready" force will grow, and the men will become competent and balanced and will

give him the men he wants in Germany and in the Strategic Reserve by 1966 or long before; or he will be able to say that he has tried all the inducements and they do not work and that something else must be tried. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a serious and considered reply because it is a serious Amendment put forward in an attempt to make this idea work.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I, too, had an opportunity to meet the crew of the U.S.S. "Sea Wolf" and I can endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the high calibre of the men who serve in nuclear submarines. I think that the hon. Member has got this question completely confused in his mind. If he will look at the report of the Second Reading debate he will see that my right hon. Friend made the distinction which he has failed to make between the "Ever-readies" and the National Service men who will have to stay in for an extra six months, or be recalled for part-time service.
My right hon. Friend made clear that the primary object of Clause 3 is to produce highly-skilled men, but first they will have to do a year's service with the Territorial Army and they should have attended an annual camp. When they have done that they will not be liable to recall under Clause 2, and to that extent the Amendment is unnecessary. But when we come to distinguish between the "Ever-ready" under Clause 3 and the National Service man already in the Army who is to be retained for an extra six months, I think that the hon. Member is completely confused. Surely here we have to make a distinction between a man serving with a unit, especially those in B.A.O.R., who will simply carry on at the standard of training reached at the end of the two years, and the "Ever-ready" who will have to have served for a year in the Territorial Army.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member has not read far enough. The Minister said:
It will also be possible for any part-time National Service man wishes to volunteer for this course. He will have to join a Territorial Army unit. If the commanding officer judges him to be sufficiently well-trained, and if there is a vacancy in his category, he can become a member of the new force without having to qualify with a year's service."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 27th Nov. 1961; vol. 650, c. 52.]

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has anticipated me. I was about to make the same quotation. I appreciate that, but I am saying that there is a world of difference between asking a man to continue when he is in the B.A.O.R. or anywhere else where National Service men are already employed, and these men who would have to be screened as it were—although that is not the right word—very carefully, and in respect of whom there would have to be a very careful examination before it can be established that they are the right men. There is a time factor in all this which the Amendment would make quite impossible to operate.

Mr. Wigg: The Secretary of State would exercise the same right of selection or would ensure the same right of selection for the Regular—the man with the Colours, the volunteer—as he would for the man who is already in the Territorial Army. Perhaps he would impose a higher standard. If a man volunteers and he is the right type, both in character and in training, I say take him and let him do it, if he is the man the Government want. If they do not want him, they should not take him.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That is what the hon. Member said when moving the Amendment. I can see his object, but the net effect of what he is trying to do will make it more impossible than ever for the Secretary of State to calculate what is likely to be the product of all this. It is complicated enough now, in all conscience. We all sympathise with the Secretary of State in the calculations and anticipations he has to make. He will not know whether they are right or wrong until the moment arrives. The Amendment can only make it even more difficult for him to be accurate in his forecasts. For that reason, the Committee would be wise to reject it.

Mr. B. Harrison: We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for tabling the Amendment to enable us to have a discussion about this principle. I agree in part with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that this might complicate the Bill and make it more difficult for my right hon. Friend

to make his calculations. It tends to highlight the fact that the Bill is not a good Bill. In fact, it is a bad Bill. It is almost impossible satisfactorily to amend it.
The Bill does not succeed in patching up our defence policy. Lord Harding said on television recently that our defence policy has definitely failed, that the evidence is there to support his view, and that we have to take these panic measures. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the principle suggested in the Amendment. In short, it includes the principle on which the American selective service has been successfully based. With this method and this liability for call-up, the Army has to take a number of persons that are directly called up, but the other Armed Forces are filled with volunteers who decide to volunteer for the other Services in order to avoid being called up. If my right hon. Friend were to study the principle involved in the Amendment, he might well find the secret of filling the gaps in the ranks which now exist in his forces. Whilst there was the threat of a selective form of service hanging over the heads of people who might be in the Armed Forces, many people would rather remove the threat—this has been the American experience—and join the Services as volunteers. Even though it might not be possible for my right hon. Friend to accept the Amendment, I hope that he will study it. I could not vote against it.
I am delighted that selective service has been recognised in the Bill. It is the one good thing in the Bill. It is not as if it is a new idea, because it was Gideon's army which was first selected by those that lapped and those that went down on their knees to drink. I am not sure that that would be a satisfactory method for my right hon. Friend to use.
I emphasise that the principle in the Amendment, even if the wording is not correct at the moment, is one which my right hon. Friend would do well to study. I hope that he will then be able to bring before us a reasonable series of Amendments, possibly on Report, so that the Bill can be made flexible and useful and become a real contribution towards building up our defence forces.

Mr. Mayhew: I think that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) will have voiced the feelings of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in his appeal to the Secretary of State to consider very carefully the principles behind the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
The response of the Secretary of State to the previous Amendment, I thought, showed a lack of enthusiasm for using the voluntary system as much as he possibly could within the limits of this Bill. This Amendment gives him another opportunity to try to limit the amount of compulsion in the Bill and to increase reliance on the voluntary system. I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but there is a question of detail about which I want to ask. I may not have understood the Bill, but suppose a man is called up under Clause 2 and volunteers for the "Ever-readies". The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
If the commanding officer judges him to be sufficiently well-trained, and if there is a vacancy in his category, he can become a member of the new force without having to qualify with a year's service. He would then not be liable for recall under Clause 2".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 52.]
If the commanding officer turns him down, is he still liable to be called up under Clause 2? I should like to be reassured about this. It would be quite wrong to refuse to accept a man as a volunteer and then to conscript him afterwards. That plainly would be wrong. It may be that I have not understood the Bill. Possibly the Secretary of State can clear that point up.

Mr. Profumo: I shall try to clear that point up at once. I think the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has stated it correctly. Anyone who was a part-time National Service man and therefore liable under Clause 2 to be called up in certain pre-Proclamation circumstances, would have, none the less, the right to volunteer to become a member of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, but, as I have told the House, I want to see that this is a crack force and, therefore, we should choose the best people to join it.
I may be wrong, but I hope that there will be more volunteers in the categories

we want than we want in the "Ever-readies". Therefore, there will be some selection. If a man volunteers, and is not accepted, either because there is no space for him in the category he represents, or because he does not come up to scratch or because there are better people already in the Territorial Army who have volunteered, he cannot get out of his commitment under Clause 2. He would be called up, if necessary, in times of tension. The only thing that would keep him out of that obligation would be to become a member of the T.A.E.R., or, if he could not get into that, the A.E.R.1. If he was accepted, so long as he was serving voluntarily in one of those forces he would not be liable to call-up under Clause 2.
If he were not accepted, he would still be in the same category as any other part-time National Service man and liable to recall under Clause 2. It is perfectly plain and clear, and I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will see that it is. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity of saying once again that the fact that a man fails to get into T.A.E.R. does not mean that he cannot get into A.E.R.1.
I absolutely accept the genuineness of the spirit of the hon. Member for Dudley in putting forward this Amendment, but the trouble with it is as follows. If the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill the effect would be that any man detailed for retention under Clause 1 or warned that he might be recalled under Clause 2 could elect to become a member of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve and would have the right to be accepted as such. That would cut across the basic requirement of the Bill. The whole concept of the "Ever-readies" or T.A.E.R. is that it should be a long-term arrangement and that it should be based on the voluntary principle.
11.15 p.m.
We must have time in which to build up this new reserve and get it properly constituted along lines on which it will be able to work. But, first of all, the volunteers should spring from the Territorial Army itself, and I am hoping that a large number of volunteers in the T.A.E.R. will be people already serving in the Territorial Army.
As I say, those National Service men given notice of retention would be certain to volunteer to become members of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. Any National Service man who has had a note saying, "You are for it for another six months", would immediately say that he had the right to become a member of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve if the Amendment was carried. The result would be that I should lose the people we need to retain under Clause 1—the people we must retain—who are already serving in B.A.O.R., and these people would not be true volunteers. They would be press ganged; they would volunteer because the only other choice would be to serve on in the other way. That is not a proper voluntary force and it is not how it can be properly constituted.
Any National Service man will have the chance to volunteer to become a member of the T.A.E.R. Any man on finishing his full-time and part-time National Service will be free to join the "Ever-readies". If successful, he will be exempt under Clause 2, as I have explained. The operative words are "If he is successful." If this force is to work properly it must be a crack force and the Territorial Army must have the right to select its members.

Mr. Paget: As I understood it, the whole point both of Clauses 1 and 2 is to give the right hon. Gentleman the right to call up special men with special qualifications. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that a man may have the special qualifications that make him desirable to be retained but those same qualifications are not such as to make him desirable as a volunteer under Clause 3?

Mr. Profumo: I did not go as far as that. I was saying that those people who may have desirable qualifications can, once they have finished their whole-time service, volunteer. If there are eighteen people with desirable qualifications, but only six are required for the Territorial Army Reserve, then we shall select the best soldiers—those with the longest service—and we shall give priority to those who are already members of the Territorial Army.
I am sure that this is the right way to deal with this matter and I have discussed this with the Duke of Norfolk

and the Territorial Army Council and this is the way they think it will work best.

Mr. Paget: If that is so, and the right hon. Gentleman has got the selected people he wants, and who are volunteers, surely he will not require the Clauses 1 and 2 people.

Mr. Profumo: The trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to take different Clauses of the Bill separately and are attempting to make them stand on their own. The Bill rests on three parts and they are all complementary. The first part of the Bill is necessary, as I have explained, because we need certain men who are serving now in certain categories. We cannot do without them. But, in addition, in case, after we have reached our minimum target of 165,000, tension rises, we must have a call on another form of reserve which until now has been post-Proclamation but which we now bring into the pre-Proclamation category. In order that we should have less reason to call on those unfortunate people, who have settled down in civilian life and so on, we are starting a new form of voluntary reserve. That is perfectly fair. People will do their training and will be paid for the liability. That is why we should call up the "Ever-readies", before we should call up any people liable under Clause 2.
If hon. Members look at the thing as a whole, they will see that it fits in perfectly well. If they look further ahead to the time when there are no part-time National Service men any more, they will see the other reason for the new Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. This is why I must insist on the thing being properly constituted from the very beginning, within the Territorial Army and as a voluntary force. That is why we cannot agree at this stage to anything which would force people on to the new Territorial Army Emergency Reserve and make it something which is not a true voluntary force.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not dismiss what I suggest merely because he does not like the wording. Furthermore, if he wants to, he can turn the Reserve into something different so that a man he nominates under Clause 1 or Clause 2 serves for two years or three years instead of


one year. My point is that, if one seriously examines the proposal he has put forward in Clause 2 as a long-term programme, it is at once plain that he must quickly put the roots out and build up his force so that it snowballs. Otherwise, merely because of the small numbers, it will earn disrepute. What I have done here is to do no more than put forward to the right hon. Gentleman an idea. I quite accept that the wording is not right. I am prepared later to ask leave to withdraw it, but I beg the Secretary of State to examine the idea on its merits, apart from the wording.

Mr. Crossman: I have a point to add, following what the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) said. I think there is greater difficulty here than my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) realises. So long as there is what I call—

Mr. Profumo: I thought at first that the hon. Gentleman wanted just to make a short intervention. I have not finished my own speech.

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry.

Mr. Profumo: I was about to say that the Amendment also assumes that any part-time National Service man, as it is put here, could have the right, if he were recalled in time of tension, to opt at that time to join the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. That is the effect of it. Clearly, this would not be practicable because, again, once we called people up, they would, not strictly as volunteers but seeing the easy way out, say they wanted to join the T.A.E.R. We could not accept that. That is the second part of the Amendment. I will not go on because I think the Committee has taken my point.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I think we have already taken it to the greatest extent possible. Of course, I will look at it again, but with absolutely no undertaking. We are going a long way on it. But, if we are to keep the force as a proper voluntary force, we must allow the commanding officer in the Territorial Army to select.

Mr. Wigg: Yes.

Mr. Profumo: That is the first point. Secondly, so long as we give to people who are part-time National Service men an opportunity to join, we are going a long way towards what the hon. Member wants. I cannot possibly accept that people we retain under Clause 1, for the reasons I have already given, could have the opportunity, instead of undertaking that obligation, of contracting out and becoming members of the T.A.E.R. They can do it the moment they have finished their whole-time training, but not before. I will certainly look at it, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, on considering it again in the light of what I have said, appreciate that we have gone a long way to meet his point.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the A.E.R.1 as an alternative for those part-time National Service men who, having tried to become "Ever-readies," have been found not suitable. Will he confirm that the choice then, from the point of view of monetary return, lies between these alternatives: if a man does not get the £150 on becoming an "Ever-ready," it is still open to him to get the £60 if he joins the A.E.R.1, plus a further gratuity if he is called out? Is that right?

Mr. Profumo: My hon. Friend is quite right. I should not like it to be thought that one is of lesser importance than the other. It is not a matter of, "If you cannot get the £150, go for the £60." There are many men who, for obligations of their jobs, family ties, and so on, could not accept the obligation of being called out by the Secretary of State in times of tension and would wish to be called out only in the circumstances of A.E.R.1. They are equally good but two completely different forces. There is, however, a choice for any part-time National Service man, or any other man, who wishes to do so, to join one of these important reserves.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert:
and no national serviceman who undertakes a regular engagement after the passing of this Act shall be entitled to claim his discharge under the provisions of section fourteen of the Army Act. 1955".


This is an Amendment which I am quite prepared to hear from the Under-Secretary is unnecessary, but perhaps I may weary the Committee for five minutes to explain what, I think, might happen. As I am not over-familiar with Civil Service Sanskrit, I cannot find in the Bill anything that would prevent what I am about to describe.
Let us imagine that there was serving as a National Service man someone not unversed in the law, who studied the Bill and came to the conclusion that if, in about the twenty-second month of his service, he joined on a Regular Army engagement, it would mean that when the twenty-fourth month arrived he would be in a position to exercise his right under Section 14 of the Army Act, 1955. He would then walk along to the commanding officer, pay £20 as a right and be discharged forthwith.
As the Secretary of State has, quite properly, made an announcement that he was suspending discharges by purchasing during the period in which National Service men were to be either retained or recalled, it seemed to me that a National Service man certainly should not be allowed to undertake a Regular engagement and then, subsequently, to claim his discharge as a right under Section 14 and thus get away with it.
I am quite prepared to learn from the Under-Secretary that my fears are groundless. I have, however, looked with care and cannot see the particular form of words which takes the middle stump out of this proposal. Therefore, I put the Amendment on the Order Paper, because if there is a loophole, it should be closed.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I hope that I can assist the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Committee fairly briefly. We all agree that the intention behind the hon. Member's Amendment is desirable. We should not want to leave in existence the kind of loophole that he has indicated. There are two possible types of case in which buying-out might conceivably be used by somebody who was ingenious to escape his liability under Clause 1.
The first type of case is when a man takes on a Regular engagement and buys himself out within the period of his two

years' compulsory National Service: that is to say, when the third month after his signing on as a Regular falls within the period of his two years' whole-time service. In a case where that happened, he would be caught, as the few cases who have tried this on in the past have been caught, under the National Service Act. That is to say, they could be recalled under that Act for National Service. They go back to square one and have to start again. Such a man can be recalled for National Service.

Mr. Wigg: Has this happened?

Mr. Ramsden: Yes, in a few cases.

Mr. Wigg: In the old days, the man would have been caught. He can be caught under the existing Act, can he?

Mr. Ramsden: Yes.
In the second type of case, a man signs on in his twenty-second month or thereabouts, as the hon. Member postulated, and the month in which he is eligible to exercise his right as a recruit and buy his discharge—that is, the third month—falls during his extended service under the Bill. If this were to happen and he bought himself out, he would be recalled by my right hon Friend under Clause 2.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley for having raised the case, because it has given me an opportunity to make clear that escape by way of this loophole would not be countenanced. This would be the way in which they would be dealt with if instances were to occur, which I very much doubt, particularly in view of what has been said tonight, especially by the hon. Member. Perhaps he would, therefore, be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget: One question, first, on the hon. Gentleman's answer, which worried me a little. Surely the calling up under Clause 2 is, in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking, something which will occur only if there is not someone available under Clause 3? What happens if somebody does, as my hon. Friend suggested, put himself out of Clause 1 and into Clause 2 by the process, and there is somebody available


for call up in that category under Clause 3? Does the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking hold good?

Mr. Ramsden: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is splitting hairs too finely. I do not think that it would prejudice the undertaking which my right hon. Friend has given, the general application of which is perfectly clear. I am sure he would say and that I can say on his behalf that it would be waived on an occasion of a deliberate attempt to evade the provisions of Clause 1.

Mr. Paget: Surely it is a somewhat odd doctrine, that someone who gives undertakings waives them? The person who waives an undertaking is the person to whom it is given, surely, not the person who gives it?

Mr. Wigg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Profumo: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
There we are. We have done what we said we would. We have made most remarkable progress in the last hour, through the magical spectacle of going home. I am sorry we did not undertake to try to do a little more. I must confess to the Committee that I am very disappointed with the progress which we have made tonight. Of course, I stick by the undertaking which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I can only say that I hope very much that when we take the remaining Clauses we shall try, now that we have got into the swing, to make a little more progress next week.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are a little ungracious to the Committee. Here we have in the last hour or so done our best to consider properly and seriously the Amendments put forward by my hon. Friend. To suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly did, that the Committee was skimping its work is quite wrong. I would say that the progress we have made today with the first four Amendments has been extremely steady. I rather take exception to the suggestion of the Secretary of State. Subject to

these remarks, however, I think it may be that we should be wise to pass the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Commonwealth Preference (Western Samoa) Order, 1961, [draft laid before the House, 16th November], approved.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT FACTORY, GLOUCESTER (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.35 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: The anxiety of 4,000 families in Gloucester and the area of Gloucester constitutes a very considerable anxiety indeed, and the first thing I want to say, therefore, is how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker that it was found possible to make arrangements for the grievances of my constituents to be aired in this way on this occasion.
I am raising the matter of the closure of the Gloster Aircraft Company factory, and I would give a short indication, in the short time available, of the background of the matter. It is not a new factory. It was established in the First World War and it made many aeroplanes for the Air Force. It has made many famous aircraft. It made the aircraft which won the aerial Derby in 1921 and the aircraft which won the world speed record in 1922. It made the first jet fighter to take the air in 1941. It has made famous aeroplanes which are well-known to everybody—the Gladiator, the Meteor, the Javelin and others.
This factory is part of the Hawker Siddeley group, one of the two fixed wing groups which came into being as a result of a Government policy of February, 1960, reorganising the industry. Eighteen months later, in August, 1961, there was a merger. There is an associated minor factory which I do not specially mention because the


major factory is the one which causes the greatest concern. The Gloster Aircraft Company amalgamated with Armstrong Whitworth of Coventry in order, as the management said at that time, to secure the jobs of the Gloster Aircraft Company. Three months later, in November, 1961, the announcement was made that this factory was to close within six months. That is the short and tragic history.
One can well imagine the hardship and anxiety that was caused by such an announcement, anxiety about uprooted families, service tenancies, families living in houses which they can occupy only so long as they continue to be employed by the company, problems of schooling, of leaving friends and relations, coping with hire-purchase instalments which have been reasonably undertaken on the basis of the fair pay and overtime work which has been available. One can imagine the cumulative effect of all these things on a city the size of Gloucester, and indeed on the neighbouring areas.
One immediately asks why has this tragedy arisen, why in the course of three months has what was thought to be prosperity turned out to be tragedy? The company gave a clear answer. The company says that it was due to the change of plans by the Ministry. The Ministry says—and it was said only as recently as Monday of this week, when the Minister of Aviation said:
We must be quite plain about this. There has been no change in Government policy as announced by my predecessor in respect of the nature of Government support and so forth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 907.]
The company says—and I quote the company's announcement—
There was positively no question of this"—
that is the close-down—
occurring in the foreseeable future when the merger was planned.
That is the merger of three months ago. Who is right? I am not accusing anyone of lack of good faith, but if there is good faith on both sides, is it not absolutely clear that here was a tragic misunderstanding on the part of the company which resulted in this disaster? Is it not plain that, if the Government had only had a plan for the industry, a plan for these particular factories, and had communicated this plan and had made it

plain to the management, this tragedy could have been completely avoided.
There are many other examples that I can give of the misunderstanding between the aircraft firms and the Government. The aircraft firms say that they were promised work if they would amalgamate. These "shotgun marriages" were achieved on the basis that only if they amalgamated would they get Government orders. They say that they have not had these orders and they feel badly let down. This has been expressed to me by all concerned.
The Government have said, and I think that I have quoted them sufficiently, that they have carried out their policy. They say that there has been no change in their plan at all. The Government say that this kind of closure, which has brought about this tragic situation in my constituency and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), was absolutely inevitable as long ago as February, 1960, when these amalgamations were planned and it was plain to the Government that this situation would arise.
The industry is suffering a reduction in the labour force. The closures already announced account for 7,500 workers. The industry anticipates further reductions in the labour force. The Ministry of Aviation says that employment is increasing. There is a complete and calamitous muddle, as a result of which a tragedy of this kind is allowed to happen. If the managements had known what the Government's intentions were, they could have avoided a catastrophe of this kind.
The first complaint I make to the Government, and it is in the form of a suggestion too, is to ask why a clear, long-term plan could not be made for this industry and fully and carefully explained so that there is no possibility of misunderstanding. What could be more appropriate for an industry of this kind, when three-quarters of the work stems from the Government, than that they should participate in a plan and make it fully known and that a longterm plan should be made when we all know that a modern aircraft requires a period of gestation which is something nearly elephantine?
The second complaint that I make against the Government is of the plain lack of foresight which is clearly attributable to the lack of sympathy which the Minister of Aviation has shown towards the plight of these men and women who are facing the sack. He has said that this is "a commercial decision" which he is not prepared to influence. He has said that it is "not a disaster." He has said that these are "painful decisions which have to be taken." I agree that the Minister says, and we accept it, that he is now in touch with his colleagues in the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour with a view to finding other jobs for the men or, alternatively, a new tenant for the factory. It is clear from the answers he has given that it was not until this tragedy occurred that there was any attempt to make these arrangements.
If only the Government had felt for the men and their families and their needs, they would have taken the simple administrative action of providing in advance that there should be careful consultations with these other Government Departments so that by the time a man was no longer needed, even if the factory had to close down, there could be another job to which he would go. It is too late, unfortunately for the anxiety to be avoided. That has already been caused and these constituents of mine and those of other hon. Members, will face a most uneasy and unhappy Christmas, waiting for the axe. In these circumstances I appeal, with all the more urgency, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation to use his best endeavours to ameliorate conditions as far as he can in the way I suggest.
The hon. Gentleman says, and I agree, that there is no likelihood of longterm unemployment in this area. Gloucester is well situated geographically for transport facilities by water, road, rail and air. It is often called the crossroads of Great Britain. It has amenities such as to be attractive to all employers of labour. There is the beauty of the Cotswolds also. All these things militate towards the likelihood of further jobs, or other employment, at this factory being available in the not impossibly distant future.
That being so, I suggest that there is no reason why the Minister should not

help these constituents of mine in these particular ways. I ask him to use his full efforts with his colleagues of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour to see that a new occupier of the factory is found as quickly as possible, and that local offices are set up, if necessary, in the factory for the employees so that they can go from one job to another. He should also give wise guidance to the employers. They are not bad employers, but they have been unable to understand all the functions they have to perform, because of lack of planning and information from the Government. The Government could invite the firm to delay the notices of redundancy and the closing of the factory, and should lean over backwards to help the men, so that by the time the factory is closed they will have found jobs elsewhere, or a new employer will have taken over.
That course of action would enable the Government to put their conscience at rest after their lack of planning and sympathy and foresight, and enable the firm in question to show its appreciation of these men and women who have worked in the factory for many years.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I want briefly to underline the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for assistance to be given by the Government along the lines he suggested. I have an additional problem, for in the Forest of Dean there has been a major employment problem arising out of the closure of the pits. When I tried to get the Government to schedule the Forest of Dean under the Local Employment Act, I was told that one of the reasons why this could not be done was because of employment prospects in the vicinity—and that reference was, of course, to Gloucester.
This new situation means that many of my constituents who have been travelling to Gloucester will now be unemployed. We have also had the closure of two factories in my area within the last six months, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find employment. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take seriously this problem as it affects Gloucester and my constituency.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: In considering this matter, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the extreme importance of keeping together the very highly skilled staff, especially on the drawing side, of this firm? If we disperse these teams, they cannot be readily re-assembled and that would be a very great loss to the country.

11.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I am sure hon. Members will allow me to say that there is no monopoly of concern on one side of the House—the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has spoken shows it—at the closing of this famous factory, whose history the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) so movingly recited—a factory which has become a household word with the proud memories of historic aircraft to which he has alluded.
I repudiate most emphatically on my right hon. Friend's behalf any charge of lack of sympathy in this matter. Quite apart from sentimental concern at this loss of an historic unit, we all naturally feel disquiet at the thought of redundancy. Redundancy is an ugly word for an ugly thing, because it simply means men without jobs, even if it is only temporary.
I have the best of possible reasons for disliking that word—personal experience. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of making a party point when I say that my experience was due to a decision of policy taken by the Labour Government about fifteen years ago, a decision which I recognise was entirely right in the national interest, hateful though it was to me. Some hon. Members may feel that I am redundant even now, and I would not dispute it, but I should like to finish my speech before I become redundant.
For the reasons that I have given, I share wholeheartedly the feelings expressed tonight. They are easy to understand, and it is impossible not to share personal feelings about individual hardship which arises in this way. What is not so easy, but just as necessary, is to recognise that in the long run the individual interest, including that of those

immediately affected, cannot be separated from the national interest. The national interest is that we should have a vigorous and prosperous economy, and a vigorous and prosperous economy is one in which, inevitably, from time to time there is some transitional redundancy—another ugly expression, but the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean—as new industries take shape and new jobs are created and new factories take the place of old ones.
The aircraft industry is not a declining industry. This is a point to which I shall return. It is an expanding industry. But it is possible for a growing industry to be expanding in one area and expanding overall, and nevertheless to be contracting at the margin in certain sectors in a process of reorganisation and rationalisation such as has been in progress in the aircraft industry since the new policy was announced in February, 1960, by my right hon. Friend's predecessor. That has been the effect on the industry of the so-called Sandys policy.
If the industry is to prosper in times which are challenging and competitive, it must reorganise itself. It has to reorganise itself into fewer and larger units, and the closure of a few—and it is a very few—factories is part of that process.
How was it decided where the contraction should take place? My right hon. Friend's predecessor pointed out in his statement in February last that there was bound to be a sharp reduction in the production of military aircraft. It was only to be expected that contraction, when it took place, would take place in peripheral factories, whether one uses that word in the geographical sense or in the sense of the nature of the work they were doing. We did not say from the beginning that this particular closure was inevitable. We said that some contraction was necessary to the efficiency of the industry.
There was no automatic chain of cause and effect which was bound to lead to this closure and to no other, but obviously a factory which was primarily concerned with producing military aircraft was more likely to be vulnerable than the others, especially when the aircraft it was producing were coming to the end of their production lives.
It has been clear for some months at any rate—I would not like to say exactly how long—that the factory near Gloucester had an excess capacity as regards producing aircraft. This was clear from the fact that, apart from work on producing the Javelin, and some contracts for other aircraft firms, it was engaged in totally unrelated types of production such as slot machines, harvesting machines, fire engines, and some other types of equipment. This also shows that it was not suffering from under capacity in producing aircraft.
Nevertheless, even last summer it was judged that the threat was not immedate. This was not a judgment by the Ministry; it was a judgment of the group. At the time of the amalgamation to which the hon. Member referred there was still, in the eyes of the HawkerSiddeley Group, grounds for an optimistic view of the future. I emphasise that it was in the Group's eyes, because the decision was one that had to rest with the group; the Government could not and would not want to take a decision for them. The Government could only make sure that the group, in making up its mind what it was going to do, knew what were the prospects of Government orders and, as the hon. Member pointed out, this is a matter of great importance, because Government orders account for—here I thought he slightly exaggerated the figure—well over 50 per cent. of the work of the group as a whole.
This obligation the Government did discharge, and I must unequivocally repudiate any suggestion that we left the group in the dark about future prospects for Government orders. I do not say that the Government had no obligation beyond that; I only say, first, that that obligation was met and discharged and, secondly, that the obligation beyond that cannot be regarded as an unlimited one. Nevertheless, even beyond the obligation to make sure that the group took its decision in full knowledge of the facts, the Government took action, and in good time, to set in motion the process of easing the transition—for a transition had to come. The process started even before there was any certainty—even a reasonable likelihood—of a closure at Gloucester.
My right hon. Friend has told the House before now—and we have re-

peated this in many contexts—that we are and have been in the closest touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade on problems arising from changes in the size or shape of the industry, both generally and in specific cases. The Board of Trade takes into account information we are able to give them—and I shall be more specific about that in a moment—in suggesting to other firms where it is possible for them to recruit labour and where there are likely to be premises available for opening new factories. The Ministry of Labour, when forewarned—and it was in this case—is in a position to make arrangements for special registration of workers for other employment before they are discharged from their present places of work.
I am not talking here merely of an empty formality. This is not simply Whitehall jargon. I wanted to make sure that this was not so, because much of this happened before I came into the Ministry. I took care to go through the files relating to the Gloucester aircraft factory to satisfy myself on this point, and I noted that from the first moment when the mere outline of a shadow began to fall over the factory—the mere hint of these troubles ahead—even though it was still many months ahead, or perhaps even a year ahead, my Ministry got into touch within three days—I have checked the dates—with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour, stating the problem, which was purely hypothetical at this stage, and which there was no reason to foresee arising within nine months or even twelve months. Indeed, it still will not become imminent until, we estimate, the middle of next year.
Within two or three weeks we had in reply very full, constructive letters from the other Ministries concerned analysing in great detail the possibilities of replacement and re-employment—again in a purely hypothetical situation which was still many months away, even if it came at all.
My hon. Friend knows—I am sorry, I apologise for calling him my hon. Friend; but in such a case as this I think that, at heart, we all feel the same—that there are other possibilities of employment in the area. We are talking in statistical terms, which always sound


callous, but the fact is that the level of unemployment in the area is well below the national average and is about 1 per cent. As a matter of fact the immediate danger is not unemployment. It is that now it is known that the blow is coming people will move out very quickly indeed and throw the run-down out of phase. Nobody can blame them for doing so, but the fact that they are doing it shows that there are other jobs available in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Loughlin: There are not 4,000 vacancies, and there are 4,000 people involved here.

Mr. Woodhouse: There are not at the moment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete this part of my argument. I suggest that the situation is far from being desperate. There are a number of existing factories in the area which hon. Gentlemen probably know better than I do. There are a number of new applications for industrial development certificates, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows. But what he may not know, and what I am glad to be able to tell him, is that there have been new approaches to the Hawker-Siddeley Group which is, of course, the owner of the factory from prospective new tenants. For obvious reasons the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give details, but that is the fact. I might add, although I think it hardly necessary in view of what I have said about our dealings with other Ministries, that we shall continue to use our best endeavours, as we are doing now to ensure that this transition is made as smoothly as possible.

Mr. Diamond: If what I might call the Diamond plan were adopted there would be no question of a phased rundown. These men would not be running away and work would be found for them.

Mr. Woodhouse: That is a perfectly valid point in theory, but it is extremely difficult to move a new industry into

a factory which is not vacated by the previous industry or even to let it to a new tenant when it is still not known at what dates the factory will be available.
I do not think there would be any justification for the Government to undertake a kind of emergency rescue operation. This is not a desperate situation. Gloucester is not a development district. It would be quite wrong, for instance, for the Government to place unwanted orders for aircraft merely to keep it going, or intervene to coerce the industry into spreading work more thinly over the existing factories which would mean producing aircraft uneconomically. That would be a hopeless endeavour in the present world situation when we live by exporting aircraft abroad.
I hope that this debate will not lead to people fearing that things are desperate in the Gloucester area or that the aircraft industry is in a critical situation. Prospects for the aircraft industry including the Hawker-Siddeley Group are exceedingly good, and I should like to give three indications of how good they are. The number employed in the industry has been going up steadily by a great deal more than the possible redundancy than may be caused in the Gloucester area. There are over 300,000 against about 280,000 18 months ago. Exports are up this year by 20 million, from £140 million to £160 million. Government orders are substantially higher now than they were a year ago by roughly 25 per cent. All these things show that it is a healthy industry and one in which the Government do not wish to interfere more than necessary to ensure that the national interest is safeguarded, and that if undue hardship is caused in particular cases it is mitigated to the best of our ability.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve o'clock.